Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Metropolitan Railway (Various Powers) Bill,

Read the Third time, and passed.

Runcorn District Water Board Bill [Lords],

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

Great Western Railway (Swansea Harbour Vesting) Bill [Lords],

London, Midland, and Scottish Railway Bill [Lords],

To be read a Second time To-morrow.

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (Sheffield Water Charges) Confirmation [Lords],

Read the Third time, and passed, with an Amendment.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (CALNE WATER) BILL,

"to confirm a Provisional Order of the Minister of Health relating to the Caine Waterworks Company, Limited," presented by Mr. NEVILLE CHAMBERLAIN; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 106.]

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 6) BILL,

"to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Minister of Health relating to Blackpool, Chiswick, Crayford, Halifax, Margate, Swindon, and Wigan," presented by Mr. NEVILLE CHAMBERLAIN; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 107.]

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

COST OF LIVING.

Mr. J. HOPE SIMPSON: 1.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India the index figure of the cost of living in India on 1st April, 1923, compared with the pre-War cost of living?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Earl Winterton): Index figures for the whole of India are not prepared. The Labour Office in Bombay, however, publishes each month an index figure for the City of Bombay. In March, 1923, this was given as 154, against a basic figure of 100 in July, 1914.

TRADE UNIONS.

Mr. SIMPSON: 2.
also asked the Under-Secretary of State for India the number of trade unions registered in India on 1st January and 1st April, 1923, respectively, and the total number of those unions on those dates?

Earl WINTERTON: It is not possible to give the information asked for, as no legislation exists at present in India requiring trade unions to register. For some time past the Government of India have had under consideration a measure relating to the registration and protection of trade unions and the views of the local Governments on the Bill are being considered.

CIVIL SERVICE (SENIORITY).

Sir JOHN HEWETT: 5.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that certain junior members of the Indian Civil Service appointed under the reconstruction scheme in the years 1919 and 1920 to the United Provinces, have been given seniority from a particular year, while they have only received the time-scale pay of the year after that from which their seniority counts; and whether, seeing that some of these officers represented their case nearly two years ago, and have recently been informed that final orders are not likely to be issued for some time, as the matter is still under the consideration of the Government of India, and will eventually have to be submitted to the Secretary of
State for India, he will ascertain from the Government of India the reason for the delay in disposing of the representation?

Earl WINTERTON: Orders with regard to the dates on which increments of pay fall due in the case of members of the Indian Civil Service appointed under the Reconstruction Scheme were sent to the Government of India in October last. I am not aware of any difficulty having arisen in applying those orders in the case of any individual members of the Service, but I will ask my Noble Friend to communicate to the Government of India a copy of the hon. Member's question and this reply.

POLICE OFFICERS (RETIREMENT).

Sir J. HEWETT: 6.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India the number of European gazetted police officers in Bengal, the United Provinces, and the Punjab, respectively, who have retired in accordance with the special terms offered to them, and the proportion which the number of officers who have so retired bears to the total force of European gazetted officers in each province?

Earl WINTERTON: The number of European officers of the Indian Police Service in Bengal, the United Provinces, and the Punjab (the figure for which last includes the North-West Frontier Province), whose applications to retire prematurely have been sanctioned is 17, 14, and 21 respectively. The proportion which these numbers bear to the total number of European officers in the police cadres of those provinces is approximately 17, 13 and 23 respectively. Some of these vacancies have been filled in the normal course and a large number of applications for the remainder have been received from ex-officers and others from which a selection will shortly be made.

Lord STANLEY: Can my Noble Friend say what number of applications have been made?

Earl WINTERTON: Approximately 600 applications from qualified applicants have been received.

CANTONMENT MAGISTRATES DEPARTMENT.

Colonel Sir CHARLES YATE: 8.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India, whether the Cantonment Magistrates Department
will be included in the terms of reference to the Royal Commission now being appointed to consider the conditions of service of the various Civil Services in India?

Earl WINTERTON: It will be for the Royal Commission to determine whether the case of these particular Indian Army Officers in civil employment falls within the terms of reference, by which, as the hon. and gallant Member is aware, the inquiry is to be in respect of the Superior Civil Services in India.

SALT DUTY.

Mr. TREVELYAN: 9.
asked the Under-Secertary of State for India, whether the Government of India has decided that it is necessary to lay before both Houses of Parliament the Act of the Governor-General of India certifying the increase of the salt duty, refused by the legislative a sembly; and how soon the Act will be laid upon the Table?

Earl WINTERTON: No decision by the Government of India is involved. In pursuance of the Government of India Act my Noble Friend is taking steps to lay on the Table of both Houses the Indian Finance Act, 1923, which I would remind the hon. Member is already in operation in accordance with Section 67b Sub-section (2) Government of India Act. The Paper is expected to be ready for distribution shortly.

FOREST ADMINISTRATION (CENTRAL PROVINCES).

Sir C. YATE: 10.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been called to the statement in the Report of the Forest Administration in the Central Provinces for the past year regarding the burning of 531,221 acres of forest, the increase of offences, and the organised looting of certain forests which is reported to be directly due to instigation by non-co-operation leaders; and whether he can state when the necessary steps will be taken by the Governor of the Central Province to put a stop to these activities on the part of non-co-operation leaders?

Earl WINTERTON: Yes, Sir. But the Report is for the year that ended 31st March, 1922, and not, as my hon. and gallant Friend suggests, for the past
year. And if he had read on further, for one sentence, he would have discovered that "strong action against offenders, together with sympathetic treatment of any real grievances which existed, and the return of more favourable seasons, resulted in a general improvement of conditions by the close of the year."

IRAQ.

Mr. LAMBERT: 11.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what progress has been made with the sale of the Iraq railways, and when it is proposed to ask Parliament to ratify the proposed treaty with King Feisal?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): The question of the railways is still under discussion with the Iraq Government. I am not in a position to make any further statement at present. With regard to the treaty with King Feisul, I have nothing to add to previous statements on the subject.

Captain BERKELEY: May I ask my hon. Friend whether the approval of the League of Nations Council is necessary to this treaty, and, if so, what steps will be taken to secure it?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I think the fact that it is proposed that the relations between the mandatory Power and the Arab State are to be regulated by treaty has been communicated to the League of Nations.

CEYLON (CONSTITUTION).

Mr. J. H. SIMPSON: 12.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has received a Report of the recent debate in the Ceylon Legislative Council on the subject of constitutional reforms; whether the proposals for a revised constitution have proved generally acceptable in that colony; and whether he can make any statement as to the intentions of the Secretary of State for the Colonies in the matter.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The Governor has informed the Secretary of State by telegram that he has recently sent by mail a Report of the proceedings in the legislative
council on the subject. Pending the receipt of that Report, I am unable to make any statement.

Mr. SIMPSON: Will that Report be laid on the Table when it arrives?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I am contemplating, before finally deciding, laying Papers showing the various representations by different parties in connection with the Ceylon constitutional reforms which have been received.

Mr. LINFIELD: Will there be an opportunity of discussing these suggestions before a final decision is taken?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: That rathedepends whether the Opposition seek an opportunity on the Colonial Office Estimates.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRISH FREE STATE.

CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS (DUTIES).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 13.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been drawn to the action of the Free State Government in imposing a duty of 5d. per foot upon negative cinematograph film and 1d. per foot on positive film entering or leaving the Free State, even although this film may have already paid a duty on entering English ports; whether he is aware that this duty will adversely affect the British cinematograph industry and whether any representation has been made to the Free State Government on the subject?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. I have no information regarding the second part. In reply to the third part this is not a matter in which, as at present advised, His Majesty's Government would think it proper to make representations to the Free State Government.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is it not possible to make friendly representations in this matter as you would do to any other country, as it affects certain British trade?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I think it is a little difficult, in view of the financial circumstances in which the Free State Government find themselves, if, at the moment when we have given them fiscal
autonomy and they put up a Customs tariff, we should immediately begin to criticise them.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is not when the Customs tariff is first put on the time to make those representations?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is a matter of opinion.

MALICIOUS INJURIES (COMPENSATION).

Colonel NEWMAN: 18.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the British Government has agreed with the Irish Free State Government to have a branch of the Compensation Commission set up in England to deal with claims for compensation in respect of injuries to persons or property sustained since the 11th July, 1921, made by persons whose lives would be in danger if the cases were to be heard in the Irish Free State; and, if not, how is it proposed that these cases should be dealt with?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: In reply to the first part of the question, the Compensation (Ireland) Commission has no power to deal with any claims for compensation in respect of injuries sustained since 11th July, 1921. In reply to the second part, as regards injuries to property, I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to Clause 12 of the Damage to Property (Compensation) Bill, which provides in certain cases for the taking of evidence on commission elsewhere than in the Free State. As regards injuries to the members of the forces of the Crown, Mr. Howell Thomas and Mr. Dowdall, who are members of the Commission, have already, as a matter of convenience, heard a number of cases in this country: in the case of other persons I understand that the Committee established by the Free State will make such arrangements as may appear to them to be necessary.

Colonel NEWMAN: 23 and 24.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) whether he is aware that the Damage to Property (Compensation) Bill, which has been before the Senate and Dail of the Irish Free State, seeks to enact that
all decrees for compensation for injuiries to property during the pre-truce period are irrecoveable and prevents any legal proceedings being brought in respect of such injuries; and whether the Government intends to take any steps to preserve for the claimant the right conferred on him by an Act of the Imperial Parliament or, in the alternative, to themselves pay the compensation, as was done by a former Government when loyalist Americans were expelled to Canada at the termination of the war of independence;
(2) whether he is aware that the Damage to Property (Compensation) Bill has now passed both Houses of the Irish Free State legislature; and whether, in accordance with the terms of the Irish Free State constitution, the Bill will be withheld for the Royal Assent having regard to its provisions?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: This Bill is still before the Irish Parliament as the Senate has yet to consider certain amendments made by the Dail to the Senate's amendment. I can only therefore refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply which I gave to him and to the hon. Member for Kensington South on the 23rd instant. I may add, however, that the Secretary of State for the Colonies and several of his colleagues in the Cabinet now hope to be able to receive the deputation to which I referred in that reply on Thursday next.

MURDER OF OFFICERS (MACROOM).

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: 25.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can secure a safe conduct for the parents of any of the three British officers who were murdered at Macroom, County Cork, in April last, who desire to proceed to the scene of the murders with view to the recovery of their sons' bodies; and whether he has any information as to whether anyone has yet been brought to justice for the murder of these three officers and their chauffeur?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I am making inquiry as to whether the bodies of these men can new be recovered and as to whether it is now possible for any of their parents, if they so desire, to go to Macroom. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.

NORTHERN RHODESIA (EDUCATION).

Mr. LINFIELD: 14.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has yet received information as to the amount spent upon education per head of the population in Northern Rhodesia?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: No direct expenditure is incurred by the British South Africa Company upon native education in Northern Rhodesia, but 10 per cent. of the tax collection in the portion of the territory formerly known as Barotseland—North Western Rhodesia—is set aside annually and after payment of a subsidy to the paramount chief, the balance of the sum so set aside is applied for the direct benefit of the natives on purposes which include the maintenance of a school in Barotseland for education or industrial training. The expenditure for this purpose for the year 1920–21 was £5,586. The total native population of Northern Rhodesia is roughly estimated at a little under a million. The total revenue of Northern Rhodesia for the year 1920–21 amounted to £235,304, and the total expenditure to £331,884, so that there was a deficit on the year's working of £96,580.

HONG KONG (MILITARY PROPERTY).

Mr. GERSHOM STEWART: 15.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any progress has been made in the negotiations between the military authorities and the civil authorities at Hong Kong in regard to the exchange of military property in the centre of the town for suitable sites outside the town, so that the present land under military occupation may become available for the erection of houses, whereby the present pressure and overcrowding may be alleviated?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Negotiations are proceeding with the War Department as to the valuation of their present properties and the provision by the Colonial Government of suitable alternative sites for the military establishments. Progress has been made and it is hoped that the transfer may be effected satisfactorily with the least possible delay.

ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY FUND.

Mr. GRATTAN DOYLE: 16.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if it is intended to accede to the almost unanimous desire of the members of the Royal Irish Constabulary Force fund to have this fund wound up; and, if not, will he say why?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Bridge-man): I have been asked to answer this question. I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies to a question on this subject on the 19th February last by the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Moles).

Mr. DOYLE: I remember that answer, but is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the great impoverishment of the members of this force, owing to their peculiar and unfortunate position, and will he not do something to enable them to get back some of the money that they have paid in to relieve them in their present necessitous circumstances?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I will do what I can to look into that question, but the R.I.C. have only recently come under the Home Office.

Sir JOHN BUTCHER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a very important Vice-Regal Commission, in which all interests were represented, recommended, at the end of 1919, that this Royal Irish Constabulary Fund should be immediately wound up, and will he take that into consideration?

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPIRE DEVELOPMENT.

FIJI ISLANDS.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHS: 17.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any representations have been made to him with reference to the further development of the Fiji Islands; if so, what action he has taken in consequence of such representations; and whether, in view of the expressed intention of His Majesty's Government to further develop the resources of the British Empire as a whole, he will take steps to see what possibilities exist there?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The prospects of further development of the Fiji Islands are constantly under the consideration of the Colonial Government and of the Secretary of State, and I doubt whether more could be done by public effort than at present to ascertain what possibilities exist, though I shall be very glad to receive any suggestions.

Captain BERKELEY: Is it not a fact that the Colony, at the present moment, is asking for a large general purposes loan, and will the hon. Gentleman consider that proposal?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I will gladly look into that.

ASCENSION ISLANDS.

Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHS: 19.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any representations have been made to him with reference to the further development of the Ascension Islands; if so, what action he has taken in consequence of such representations; and whether, in view of the expressed intention of His Majesty's Government to further develop the resources of the British Empire as a whole, he will take steps to see what possibilities exist there?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: In view of the limited area and the physical configuration of Ascension I fear that the expenditure of funds in the development of the island would not add materially to the resources of the Empire. The question of granting a concession to take turtle on the island has been under consideration.

SEYCHELLES.

Lieut. - Colonel Sir PHILIP RICHARDSON: 20.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any representations have been made to him with reference to the further development of the Seychelles; if so, what action he has taken in consequence of such representations; and whether, in view of the expressed intention of His Majesty's Government to further develop the resources of the British Empire as a whole, he will take steps to see what possibilities exist there?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: No special representations have been received by the
Secretary of State as to the development of Seychelles. The resources of the Colony have, however, been recently investigated with the assistance of His Majesty's Government by an agricultural expert to whose recommendations effect will be given as the financial position may permit.

DOMINICA.

Sir P. RICHARDSON: 21.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any representations have been made to him with reference to the further development of the Island of Dominica; if so, what action he has taken in consequence of such representations; and whether, in view of the expressed intention of His Majesty's Government to further develop the resources of the British Empire as a whole, he will take steps to see what possibilities exist there?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Representations have been made in connection with the recommendation on this subject contained in my predecessor's Report on the West Indies and have been explored, but unfortunately without much success. The possibility of new industries has also been considered by the Commissioner of Agriculture for the West Indies, and will be investigated by the new Administrator when he reaches the island. I am glad, however, to be able to say that the sweet lime and citric acid trade, on which the Presidency mainly depends for its prosperity, has recently improved and that prospects are in consequence distinctly more hopeful than at the date when my right hon. Friend wrote his Report.

Mr. LINFIELD: Will the hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of sending the hon. and gallant Member on a deputation to report on the possibility of development of that island?

DOMINION TRADE (BRITISH PREFERENCE).

Mr. GILBERT: 22.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the amount of preferential tariff given by the Dominion of Australia on British-manufactured goods imported into that Dominion; whether any special legislation has been passed in Australia dealing with the low prices on foreign imports
owing to depreciated exchanges; and can he made a statement as to whether the same benefits British goods?

Mr. GILBERT: 62 and 63.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department (1) whether the Dominion of New Zealand gives any preference on import duties on British-manufactured goods imported into that Dominion; if any other facilities are given to British manufacturers for trading in New Zealand;
(2) what preference is given by the Dominion of Canada on import duties on British goods sent into that Dominion; if any other special facilities are given to British manufacturers; and whether any preference is given by Canada to imports from the United States and, if so, to what extent?

Lieut.-Colonel BUCKLEY (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): As it is impossible to answer these questions except at great length, I will send the hon. Member a statement giving the information for which he asks.

Mr. GILBERT: Will the statement be printed in the OFFICIAL REPORT?

Mr. BARKER: Is the tariff now imposed by Australia on British goods prejudicial to the trade of this country?

Lieut.-Colonel BUCKLEY: The statement is not ready yet, but I hope to have it ready in time for issue in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

BRITISH EMPIRE EXHIBITION.

Sir HARRY BRITTAIN: 26.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the total outlay contemplated by the Governments of the Dominions, India, and the Colonies on participation in the British Empire Exhibition?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: It is not yet possible for me to give figures with any degree of accuracy, since the extent of the expenditure of each unit depends upon circumstances. So far as my information goes, the Dominions expect to spend a total of some £600,000, and the Colonies and Protectorates at least £250,000, but the exact amounts are quite uncertain. In some cases private subscriptions are being raised to supplement Government grants. I have no information as regards India.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Is not practically every part of the British Empire now participating in this great exhibiton?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I think that there are only a few small portions of the Empire, such as Ascension, which are nut going to participate.

Mr. W. THORNE: Has the hon. Gentleman read this morning what happened on Saturday in the exhibition ground?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: That has nothing to do with me.

Mr. BECKER: 60.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether, seeing the great advertising value of a high tower built at Wembley in connection with the British Empire Exhibition, his Department will look sympathetically on such a proposal?

Lieut.-Colonel BUCKLEY: On such information as I have been able to obtain at present, I cannot but feel that there are serious objections to the erection of a structure of the kind at Wembley, and I have instructed the representative of my Department on the Management Committee of the British Empire Exhibition to put my views before the committee.

Mr. MOSLEY: Has the hon. Gentleman not arrived at the conclusion that an executive committee which is incapable of managing a football match is also incompetent to build a Tower of Babel?

Mr. BECKER: Would not the advertising value of such a tower overcome other objections such as were made to the Eiffel Tower in Paris?

COLONIAL MEDICAL SERVICE.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: 28.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Secretary of State for the Colonies has under consideration any proposals for ameliorating the conditions of medical service in the Windward Islands; whether he is aware that the conditions referred to have been the subject of memorials from the Grenada Medical Service since 1919; and when it is proposed to give a final decision as to the points at issue?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The answers to the first two parts of my hon. Friend's question are in the affirmative. A decision will be arrived at in the matter at an early date, but I am sorry to say that the financial position of the Windward Islands is such as to restrict the possibilities of improvement in the conditions of the medical service.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: 29.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies which colonies, and how many individual medical appointments, are affected by the discontinuance of recruitment in this country in the case of certain medical posts at low salaries; how these appointments are now filled by the several colonies; and what are the medical qualifications and nationality of the successful candidates for such posts?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The question whether a medical appointment in the West Indies should be filled from this country is frequently decided only when a vacancy occurs, and accordingly it is not possible to state definitely how many individual appointments are affected, but the number is probably between a dozen and a score. The appointments concerned are some of those in the Windward, Leeward, Bahamas, Turks, Caicos and Cayman Islands. Most of them are filled by local West Indian candidates of British nationality possessing qualifications obtained in the United Kingdom or Canada. It appears that there are only two medical men in the islands in question whose qualifications are foreign.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: Is it the case that the reason these posts are filled by persons holding American degrees is because the conditions of service were not such as to attract those with British qualifications?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I believe that those two doctors with American degrees were British West Indians.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: 30.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Secretary of State for the Colonies is still, in the words of the Wood Report, always hampered in recruitment for colonial medical appointments carrying rights of private practice by the absence of sufficient data as to the value of such practice; if so, what steps have been taken by his Department to
give effect to the suggestions of his predecessor in office for removing this defect; and with what result?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: My hon. and gallant Friend will, no doubt, appreciate that the value of a private practice must vary in accordance with the individual capacity of its holder, and accordingly such information as the Colonial Governments are able to supply can only be of limited utility as a guide to the value of the appointment. The passage in the Report dealing with this point was referred to the Colonial Governments concerned for their observations, and no specific reply has yet been received. I may say, however, that there has been no difficulty in the case of any appointment to these Colonies since the date of the Report.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: Is it a fact that, despite these uncertainties, a definite idea of the enormous advantages of private practice is given to those applying for appointments?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I believe that all that is done is to tell candidates in round figures what the private practice brought in to the previous occupant of the post.

TURKEY (CHESTER CONCESSION).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 32.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any further information about the Chester concession in Turkey; and whether the concession affects British interests in Turkey in any way?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Ronald McNeill): A despatch containing what purports to be the text of the Chester Concession was received at the Foreign Office this morning, but there has not yet been time to examine it.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I will put this question on Wednesday.

DIPLOMATIC SERVICE.

Major WARING: 33
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) whether, seeing that the personnel of the British embassies and legations abroad has increased since 1913 by 70 per cent., he will say what additional
functions and duties are performed at these embassies and legations which were not performed in 1913;
(2) whether the addition of two British legations accounts for the increase of 70 per cent. in the personnel of the diplomatic service since 1913; if not, how is the increase accounted for;
(3) whether the personnel of the diplomatic service abroad are paid in sterling or in the currency of the country to which they are accredited; and, if the former, whether the rates of exchange counterbalance any increase in the cost of living?

Mr. McNEILL: As the answer is somewhat long, I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Is it not a fact that more than one of our representatives spend a considerable portion of their private means in keeping up the prestige of the British Empire?

Following is the answer:

The percentage increase referred to in the questions is the increase in the total number of persons employed at His Majesty's Embassies and Legations abroad, including clerical staff. The percentage increase in the actual diplomatic staff is only a little over 10 per cent., the numbers being 115 in 1913 and 127 in 1922.

The functions and duties performed at Embassies and Legations are substantially the same as they were in 1913, but the volume of work involved in their discharge has increased to an extent proportionately much in excess of the increase in personnel, largely due to the present unsettled state of international affairs, arising out of the War. The matter, in its bearing on the Foreign Office, was fully dealt with in a reply given by my predecessor to a question asked by the hon. Member for South Kensington on 4th July, 1921 (OFFICIAL REPORT, volume 144, column 6). The considerations referred to in the first, second and penultimate paragraphs of the answer then given apply with equal force to the work at His Majesty's Embassies and Legations abroad.

The emoluments of the members of His Majesty's Diplomatic Service are on a sterling basis.

The depreciation in the value of currency does not necessarily counterbalance the rise in the cost of living, and the tendency is for the general level of prices in each country to attain the world level, but the state of the exchange and its effect on the cost of living, measured in sterling, are taken into account in fixing the special allowances payable to members of the Diplomatic Service.

Oral Answers to Questions — PEACE TREATIES.

MEMEL (ALLIED OCCUPATION).

Mr. FRANK GRAY: 36.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can now inform the House the amount of the expenses of the Allies' occupation of the Memel territory; and the reason there was for the occupation continuing till 1923 at an expense which falls upon the inhabitants?

Mr. McNEILL: The expenses of the occupation of the Memel territory have been defrayed by the French Government, but I have no information to show the total amount recoverable by that Government on this account. It was not possible to discontinue the occupation of Memel until the definite settlement of the future status of the territory.

SUCCESSION STATES (CITIZENSHIP).

Captain MOREING: 39.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether citizens of Poland, Ozecho-Slovakia, Yugo - Slavia, and Rumania, who were formerly subjects of the German or Austria-Hungarian Empires, are regarded, for the purpose of peace treaties, as citizens of friendly States; and whether any distinction is drawn between those who were formerly German subjects and those who were Austro-Hungarian subjects?

Mr. McNEILL: The answer to the first part of the question is generally in the affirmative, but there are certain exceptions with regard to which I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to Articles 76 and 77 of the Treaty of St. Germain, Article 62 of the Treaty of Trianon, and Article 91 of the Treaty of Versailles. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.

GERMAN REPARATION.

Mr. BECKER: 41.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if His Majesty's Government has received any proposals from the German Government for settlement of the reparations question?

Mr. McNEILL: The last proposal of this nature received by His Majesty's Government was that which was considered and rejected by the conference of Prime Ministers held in London in December last. The text of the proposal is contained in Command Paper 1812, paragraphs 57–60.

Mr. LAMBERT: 48.
asked the Prime Minister if the financial proposals made by him at Paris in January, whereby the payments to be made by the Allies and Germany to Great Britain are not sufficient by 100,000,000 to meet the British payments to America, are cancelled?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Baldwin): We retain an entirely free hand as regards the future on all questions of reparations.

RUMANIAN LOAN.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: 38.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the Rumanian Government is about to ask the British public to subscribe to a loan; that the Rumanian Government has not honoured its obligations to British holders of the Rumanian Government 1898 4 per cent. bonds, in that the Rumanian Government is paying interest to British subjects in depreciated francs, and not in gold lei, in accordance with the undertaking printed on the coupons of the 1898 bonds, and is not maintaining the sinking fund on this loan; will he request the Rumanian Minister to state whether the Rumanian Government will honour its obligations to British holders of the 1898 4 per cent. bonds; and will he, for the protection of British investors, see that the Rumanian Government's reply appears before any new Rumanian loan is issued in London?

Mr. McNEILL: The loan referred to has been issued. As regards the second and third parts of the question, I have already stated in reply to a previous
question by the hon. Member for Exeter on 12th March last that negotiations between the Rumanian Government and His Majesty's Government have resulted in the appointment of a special Rumanian Commission to investigate the claims of British holders. In reply to the last part, as the Rumanian loan referred to has already been issued, I cannot give the assurance suggested by the hon. Member, nor would it appear to have been necessary in any case, since subscribers to the loan are no doubt fully informed of all circumstances affecting the credit of the Rumanian Government.

Mr. SAMUEL: Will the Government, on the appointment of this Commission, go into the question with the Rumanian Government, with the view of getting them to honour their obligations to the earlier British subscribers to the loan?

Mr. McNEILL: I cannot say without notice exactly how the matter stands at present. If my hon. Friend will put down a question, I will answer it.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA.

OUTRAGES ON BRITISH SUBJECTS.

Sir W. DAVISON: 40.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will lay upon the Table the despatch which has been sent to the Russian Soviet Government with regard to the series of outrages which have been perpetrated on British citizens in Russia aid on the high seas, for which no redress has been obtained?

Mr. McNEILL: The proposed communication to the Soviet Government, to which I referred on Wednesday last, is not yet in their hands. It will be laid upon the Table in due course.

Sir W. DAVISON: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that this matter is of extreme urgency and does not brook delay, and will a time limit be put for the reply of the Soviet Government?

Mr. McNEILL: I fully realise the importance of the matter, but I cannot say anything about a time limit.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Has this despatch been already drawn up and sent to Russia?

Mr. McNEILL: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman had listened to my reply he would have heard that it is not yet in their hands.

Sir W. DAVISON: When will the despatch be laid on the Table?

Mr. McNEILL: I cannot say at present.

Mr. BARKER: Is this country officially represented at the seat of the Russian Government?

Mr. McNEILL: I have several times lately answered questions as to the exact status of the Mission in Moscow, and I would refer the hon. Member to those answers.

Captain Viscount CURZON: 59.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give the terms of the Note to the Russian Government; whether the Note has as yet been sent, and if any time limit is attached thereto; whether it is proposed to compensate the owners and the ship's company of the "James Johnson"; whether steps have been taken for the safe and immediate return of the officers and men to their homes; and whether His Majesty's Government propose to take steps to seize Soviet property and revenue within the British Empire until full compensation has been paid?

Mr. McNEILL: I regret that I am not in a position to state the terms of the Note, which is at the present moment under the final consideration of His Majesty's Government. As soon as possible a full claim for compensation will be presented to the Soviet Government. His Majesty's Government are hardly in a position to assume liability for this claim independently of their liability for the other numerous outstanding claims against the Soviet Government. I am in communication with the Admiralty as to the possibility of repatriating the master and crew as soon as it is known that they have been released. The answer to the last part is in the negative.

Viscount CURZON: I understand that there is no definite information as to the position of the officers and men of this ship: and can the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that there will not be undue delay in presenting this demand to the Soviet Government?

Mr. LANSBURY: What about the American Government?

Viscount CURZON: Will the hon. Gentleman answer the first supplementary question as to whether he has any definite information as to the position of the officers and men of this ship—working men?

Mr. McNEILL: I have information, but I am not quite certain that it is definite.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Has this Note not yet been sent?

Mr. McNEILL: No.

TERRITORIAL WATERS.

Mr. MOREL: 56.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, having regard to the fact that a dispute between the Russian and Norwegian Governments respecting the width of territorial waters off the coast of Northern Russia was recently settled amicably by negotiations, inquiries have been made as to the willingness of the Russian Government to negotiate with His Majesty's Government on the dispute: and whether, for their part, His Majesty's Government are equally prepared to enter into negotiations with the Russian Government?

Mr. McNEILL: The Norwegian Government, equally with His Majesty's Government, have disputed the claim of the Russian Government to a 12-mile limit of territorial waters, and the dispute is, so far as I am aware, not yet settled. On the publication of the Russian decree of May, 1921, making this claim, His Majesty's Government informed the Soviet Government of their inability to concur in any extension of territorial limits beyond three nautical miles. While not admitting that the principle of a three-mile limit can be called in question, they have nevertheless expressed their readiness to discuss with the Soviet Government a special convention for the protection of seal fisheries in these waters. In September, 1921, the Soviet Government accepted this offer, but it has not up to the present transmitted the draft convention requested by His Majesty's Government as a first step in the negotiations.

Captain BERKELEY: Has the British Government asked the Soviet Government whether it is willing to refer this question to the Permanent Court of International Justice?

Mr. McNEILL: No, Sir.

Mr. MOREL: 57.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether there is any international law in force limiting territorial waters to a three-mile limit; whether he is aware that other nations have reserved more than a three-mile limit in relating to fishing rights; that the Tsarist Government of Russia reserved a 12-mile zone off the coast of Northern Russia for fishing rights; that on the 22nd March, 1911, the then British Foreign Minister had a conversation with Count Benckendorff on the subject; that on that occasion the Russian Government suggested that the matter be discussed at the Hague Conference, and that Sir Edward Grey informed Sir George Buchanan that Great Britain was ready to discuss the question at an international conference; and whether, seeing that the present Russian Government adopted the policy previously followed in this respect by the Tsarist Government in a decree dated the 24th May, 1921, and notified the Powers to that effect, he will state what action His Majesty's Government propose to take in the matter?

Mr. McNEILL: The doctrine of territorial waters is not laid down in any international instrument, but the jurisdiction of nations over their coastal waters has been accepted by usage and is now a recognised rule of international law; His Majesty's Government have always maintained that by international law and practice the general limit of territorial jurisdiction is three miles, but from time to time claims to extend the three-mile limit have been advanced by different States. Such claims, which amount to annexation of the high seas, could only be made effective by international agreement. The Imperial Russian Government put forward a claim in 1909 to extend to 12 miles the limit of Russian territorial waters. His Majesty's Government refused to admit this claim, but consented to refer the question for discussion to The Hague Conference. The Imperial Russian Government immediately on receipt of representations from His Majesty's Government released a British vessel which had been seized outside the three-mile limit, and refrained from attempting to enforce their claim pending its discussion at an international conference. In this respect the present Russian Government, so far from adopting the policy followed by the Imperial Russian
Government, has insisted on enforcing a decree made in May, 1921, which has no international sanction, and, in spite of repeated representations of His Majesty's Government in connection with the seizure of British vessels, has refused to give any satisfaction whatever.

Mr. MOREL: Does not the latter part of the reply suggest the advisability of making an agreement with Russia?

Oral Answers to Questions — FRANCE AND RUHR DISTRICT.

BRITISH GOODS IN TRANSIT.

Sir GODFREY COLLINS: 43.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what are the Regulations relating to transit goods for the occupied areas of Germany; what evidence is required, for example, for goods in transit for Austria; and whether there is any differentiation in the treatment of British, French and Belgian traders?

Lieut.-Colonel BUCKLEY: I have been asked to reply. Goods consigned from a country other than Germany by way of the occupied territories to a country other than Germany enjoy the usual transit facilities, i.e., they are exempt from duty both on entry into and departure from the occupied territory, if the transit Regulations are complied with. I am sending the hon. Member a copy of the Regulations relating to international transit, which were issued by the Customs Managing Committee of the High Commission on the 22nd February last. So far as I am aware, the answer to the last part of the queston is in the negative.

RHINE NAVIGATION.

Mr. CHARLES BUXTON: 53.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the British representatives on the Central Commission on Rhine Navigation have taken any and, if so, what steps to remove the obstructions placed in the way of free traffic on the Rhine in contravention of the Mannheim Convention of 17th October, 1868, and therefore of Article 354 of the Treaty of Versailles which incorporates the said Convention?

Mr. McNEILL: The answer is in the negative, as the French and Belgian Governments have given assurances of
their intention to observe the Convention of Mannheim.

Mr. BUXTON: Does the statement that they intend to observe it imply that hitherto they have not observed it?

Mr. McNEILL: That is exactly the point which has been very much discussed. I am not at all certain whether it has been observed or not.

GERMAN SUBJECTS (PASSPORTS).

Mr. TREVELYAN: 42.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on what ground visas have just been refused to some German ladies who had been invited to come to England from the Ruhr to give first-hand information as to the conditions at present subsisting there and in the Rhineland?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I have been asked to reply. I think the hon. Member is referring to a case in which I decided, after consideration, that it was not desirable, at this particular juncture, that the plan to bring these ladies to this country to address meetings on the subject of the Ruhr and the Rhineland should be carried out.

MEXICO.

Mr. ERSKINE: 44 and 50.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) whether he can now state the position with regard to recognition of the Mexican Government;
(2) whether he can give the House any information as to the position of the Mexican Government in regard to the resumption of dividend payments on the external and internal loans, in view of the fact that British investors are very largely interested?

Mr. McNEILL: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave on the 14th March to questions put by the hon. Members for Central Wandsworth and East Fulham on similar subjects. No further negotiations have since then been initiated with a view to the recognition of the Mexican Government. I have no official information as to whether or not dividend payments on the Mexican external and internal loans have actually been resumed.

GERMAN SUBMARINES (ATROCITIES BY COMMANDERS).

Mr. MOREL: 46.
asked the Prime Minister if his attention has been drawn to a speech by Admiral Sims, of the United States Navy, delivered at Los Angeles City Club on 3rd April, to the effect that there is no authentic record of an atrocity ever having been perpetrated by the commander and crew of a German submarine; that the Press stories of atrocities were nothing but propaganda; that the British and American naval records are filled with reports showing that German U-boat commanders aided in the rescue of crews and passengers of ships they sank; and that if they could not tow the ships to safety they would always, by means of the radio, notify other ships of the position of the crippled vessel; and if he is in a position to make any statement as to British naval records in this regard?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Commander Eyres-Monsell): I have been asked to reply. I have seen Press statements regarding the speech referred to. Full information with regard to atrocities committed by-German submarine commanders was, in accordance with Article 228 of the Peace Treaty, given to the Allied Sub-Commission in August, 1919, and I cannot accept the assertion that there was nothing but propaganda in the accounts of these atrocities. On the other hand, many German submarine officers behaved with as much humanity as was possible, subject to their general orders to sink merchant vessels indiscriminately and without warning.

Mr. MACPHERSON: Is it not a fact that one German submarine commander was tried by the German Court?

Commander EYRES-MONSELL: Yes.

Mr. A. A. SOMERVILLE: Did not the German Admiralty issue the infamous order that enemy merchantmen were to be sunk "without trace"?

Commander EYRES-MONSELL: That is a well-known fact.

Sir J. BUTCHER: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that a full report of some of the most hideous atrocities committed by German submarines was published in the official account of the Leipzig trials?

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Would it not be as well to wait until the full report of the speech of this American admiral is received here?

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

TRAWLING (MORAY FIRTH).

Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR: 49.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the spawning grounds in the Moray Firth are among the largest and most important round our coast; that they are being destroyed by trawlers, of whom the principal offenders are foreign trawlers, who are allowed to trawl up to the three-mile limit by virtue of the North Sea Convention, 1882; that distress and the consequent process of depopulation is spreading among the fishing communities along the Moray Firth; and whether he will approach the other signatories to the North Sea Convention, with a view to arranging for the mutual protection of spawning grounds outwith the limits of territorial waters?

Captain ELLIOT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health, Scotland): I have been asked to answer this question. The important part which the Moray Firth plays in regard to certain kinds of fish is realised. The amount of trawling which is at present going on in the Moray Firth and the consequent injury to the grounds are not, I think, considerable. During the year ended 21st April, 1923, the average number of foreign trawlers observed in the Firth has been only about two per month. In the circumstances such trawling can scarcely be regarded as having any material influence upon decline of population among the fishing communities concerned. The question of the measures to be taken with a view to conservation of stocks of fish in the North Sea is being considered from the scientific standpoint by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea.

Mr. MACPHERSON: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that even two trawlers seen trawling in the Moray Firth are offensive to the local fishermen? Is the Noble Lord the Secretary far Scotland to give a Committee for going into the whole question?

Captain Viscount CURZON: Is it not a fact that a great deal of trawling is done at night?

Captain ELLIOT: The question on the Paper has reference to the injury done to the fish stocks in the North Sea; it is not a question of whether or not it was offensive to the fishermen. Undoubtedly not every case of trawling is observed, but the number of cases alleged by the fishermen is not very much higher than the number actually observed by the boats engaged in the detection of these criminals.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Are we claiming to prevent this fishing outside the three miles?

Captain ELLIOT: That is the point. This fishing is outside the three miles limit, and the hon. and gallant Gentleman, who has served in the Navy, will recognise that it is very difficult to enforce prohibition against vessels trawling outside the three miles. We are engaged in a dispute with the Government of Russia on this very point.

Mr. MACPHERSON: I beg to give notice that I will raise this question on the Adjournment to-morrow night.

Mr. HARMSWORTH: 68.
asked the Minister of Agriculture why the German trawlers possess the right to fish the Moray Firth when our own are excluded; and whether the Government will consider bringing in a Measure to prevent the Germans underselling our own fishermen in our own markets by reason of the variations in the exchange?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Sir R. Sanders): It was decided by His Majesty's Government in 1907, as a result of representations by the Norwegian Government, that the bye-law which prohibits trawling in the Moray Firth should not be enforced against foreigners employed on foreign vessels. Following upon this decision, the Trawling in Prohibited Areas Prevention Act, 1909, was passed in order to prevent the landing in this country of any fish caught by foreign trawlers in the Moray Firth or similar areas. Only three German trawlers have been observed in the Moray Firth since the 1st January last. With reference to the second part of the question, so long as fish taken by German vessels is sold, as at present, by auction at the port of landing, in competition with fish landed by British fishing vessels, it does not appear to me that any question of underselling can arise.

HOUSING GRANTS.

Sir G. COLLINS: 91.
asked the Under-Secretary to the Scottish Board of Health the actual total expenditure by way of grants on housing schemes under the 1919 Housing Acts for the three financial years, 1920–21, 1921–22, and 1922–23?

Captain ELLIOT: The total expenditure by way of grants on housing schemes in Scotland under the Housing, Town Planning, etc. (Scotland) Act, 1919, and the Housing (Additional Powers) Act, 1919, was in 1920–21, £135,140; in 1921–22, £658,247; and in 1922–23, £837,114.

OVERCROWDING, MOTHERWELL.

Mr. NEWBOLD: 92.
asked the Under-Secretary to the Scottish Board of Health whether he has any information regarding the property at Craigneuk, Motherwell, known as McConnell's Buildings; whether he is aware that in one portion thereof, partitioned off, a stable, an ex-service man, his wife and five children are at present residing; and whether he will take steps to provide better housing accommodation in this district?

Captain ELLIOT: I am informed that the property in question was constructed in October, 1920, by the conversion of a stableman's bothy, and the inclusion of a portion of a building previously used as a bottling store. The Dean of Guild Court reserved to the town council as the local authority under the Housing Acts the right to close the property at any time. As regards the second part of the question, I have no information. With regard to the last part of the question, the local authority have already completed 334 houses under the State-assisted scheme, and 316 are under construction, the total deficit on which will fall upon the State. Further proposals of the Government for increasing the provision of houses are contained in the Measure which is now before the House.

LEAGUE OF NATIONS (SAAR DISTRICT).

Mr. C. BUXTON: 52.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, at the recent meeting of the Council of the League of Nations, the British representative protested against or made any comments upon the decree of
the Governing Commission of the Saar District imposing severe penalties on any person who should criticise the actions of the said Governing Commission; and what answer was given by M. Rault, the French representative on the Commission?

Mr. McNEILL: I cannot undertake to give the House details of a discussion in the Council of the League of Nations. I must ask the hon. Member to await the issue of whatever statement the Council may decide to publish.

Mr. BUXTON: Did the British representatives abstain from voting on the point?

Mr. McNEILL: I cannot say without notice.

Captain BERKELEY: May I ask the British representative, whom we are glad to see back again with the House, whether a statement on the work of the Council will be made at an early date?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Edward Wood): I cannot say in what form a statement will be made. It is obviously a matter for the Leader of the House. I advise hon. Members to follow the advice of the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs, and await the full report.

Mr. BUXTON: When will the report be issued?

Mr. McNEILL: I cannot say. I have not been in communication with the Council.

UNITED STATES (SEIZURE OF BRITISH VESSEL).

Mr. TREVELYAN: 54.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that a seizure of British ships was made by the United States last year outside the three-mile limit; and whether the protest made by the British Government on that occasion to the United States Government can be published?

Mr. McNEILL: A British vessel was seized and is still detained by the United States authorities on the ground that her small boats had entered the three-mile limit for an illegal purpose although the vessel herself had remained outside. His Majesty's Government have questioned the right of the United States Government
to make this seizure and diplomatic correspondence on the subject is proceeding. No useful purpose would be served by laying this correspondence before Parliament at the present stage.

Mr. LANSBURY: Is there to be any time limit in this case?

Mr. SIMPSON: Is this the only case in which British vessels have been seized?

CHINESE DIPLOMATIC MISSIONS (EXPENSES).

Dr. CHAPPLE: 58.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Government has now received any information regarding the request made by Dr. Wellington Koo, the Chinese Foreign Minister, to the diplomatic body to release about £320,000 of Customs surplus for the purpose of covering the arrears of salary and expenses of the Chinese diplomatic missions abroad; and what has been the answer returned to it?

Mr. McNEILL: No further information has been received since the reply which I gave to the hon. Member on the 23rd instant. His Majesty's Minister at Peking has evidently not thought it necessary to report by telegram, and a despatch on the subject could not reach London till the latter part of May. There is no reason to doubt the accuracy of the report which appeared in the Press.

EMPIRE SETTLEMENT (TRAINING CAMPS).

Colonel Sir A. HOLBROOK: 61.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether any portion of the annual Parliamentary grant for overseas settlement can be allocated towards the expenses of training camps in which town-bred workers, for whom employment is not available, could receive practical instruction in agriculture as a preliminary to successful overseas employment?

Lieut.-Colonel BUCKLEY: I invite my hon. and gallant Friend's attention to the replies given on the 19th April by my hon. Friend the Minister of Health and myself to the two questions asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnstaple. My hon. and gallant Friend will see from the answer which I gave on that occasion that the contribution of His Majesty's
Government to any scheme under the Empire Settlement Act may not exceed half the expenses of the scheme. Subject to this condition, "training" is specifically mentioned in the Act as one of the forms of assistance to which His Majesty's Government may contribute.

SUGAR IMPORTS.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 64.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department what total quantity of sugar was imported into the United Kingdom in the year 1913; and what proportions came from foreign countries and from within the British Empire, respectively?

Lieut.-Colonel BUCKLEY: The total quantity of refined and unrefined sugar imported into the United Kingdom in the year 1913 was 39,385,190 cwts., of which 37,944,801 cwts. were consigned from foreign countries and 1,440,389 cwts from countries within the British Empire.

Oral Answers to Questions — WEMBLEY STADIUM.

FOOTBALL CUP-TIE.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 65.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether steps are being taken to ensure that the communications with Wembley exhibition grounds and stadium will be of a nature to dispel any apprehension as to their inaccessibility?

HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Sir H. BRITTAIN: May I say that the question has been physically answered since it was put down, but I should like to hear the hon. and gallant Gentleman's reply?

Mr. SHINWELL: The question establishes the hon. Member's reputation as a prophet.

Lieut.-Colonel BUCKLEY: I understand that the crowd which was present at Wembley on Saturday was estimated at not less than 200,000 persons. The rapidity with which this enormous assemblage was poured into the exhibition area caused, as my hon. Friend is no doubt aware, a very anxious situation, but it at
least leaves no room for doubt as to the ready accessibility of the grounds.

Mr. F. GRAY: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that all the entrances to the ground are quite unsuitable for the reception of a crowd, as are also the entrances to the buildings?

Mr. JARRETT: On the point of accessibility, does the hon. and gallant Gentleman realise the number of hours it took some people to get from the centre of London to Wembley on Saturday?

Mr. BUCHANAN: If, in future, it is intended to have a football match like that of Saturday, will the hon. and gallant Gentleman consider having it transferred to Glasgow in order that it may be properly conducted?

Mr. J. JONES: (by Private Notice) asked the Home Secretary if he is aware of the incidents that took place at the Stadium at Wembley on Saturday last on the occasion of the playing of the final for the English Football Cup—

An HON. MEMBER: Who won?

Mr. JONES: I do not care who won. I only know who lost—in which 1,000 persons were more or less seriously injured; and if he is prepared to order a public inquiry into the whole of the circumstances?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I have called for reports on this matter, and if the hon. Member will put his question on the Paper, I shall be in a position to give him an answer.

Mr. JONES: When shall I put a question down!

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The hon. Member might put it down to-day for Wednesday.

Mr. MOSLEY: Pending the result of the inquiry, will the right hon. Gentleman state what steps he proposes to take to protect Wembley from the hooliganism imported there, and the ineptitude of the amusement authorities at the Exhibition?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman proposes to substitute that question for the question of which he has given me Private Notice?

Mr. J. JONES: As far as the crowd were concerned, may I be allowed to say
that they were good-humoured? Had it not been for the conduct of the police and the good humour of the crowd, there would have been murder. Therefore, the hon. Member for Harrow (Mr. Mosley) has no right to talk about "hooliganism."

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Harrow ought not to have made allegations under the guise of a Private Notice question.

Mr. MOSLEY: May I say—

Mr. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Member wish to put his question as he sent it to me?

Mr. MOSLEY: (by Private Notice) asked the Home Secretary whether he will state the reasons for the defective police arrangements, which resulted in the serious injury of many persons at Wembley Stadium on Saturday last?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I know of no ground for the suggestion that the police arrangements were defective, and I very much resent the suggestion being made. I agree entirely with the hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones) that, had it not been for the good temper of the crowd and the behaviour of the police, a much more serious result might have occurred. In reply to the hon Gentleman's question, as stated in my reply to the hon. Member for Silvertown, I have called for full reports. I am informed that 12 persons were detained at hospital but several were discharged yesterday, and, as far as the police can ascertain, the cases of a serious nature number six or seven.

Mr. MOSLEY: If the crowd was entirely good-humoured, and the police arrangements were quite perfect—[An HON. MEMBER: "Nobody said that.'"]—will the right hon. Gentleman take some further steps to prevent good-humoured incidents of this nature, which many of the local people resent?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I do not know whether the hon. Member expects me to take steps before I have a report on the matter. That is not my way of proceeding.

Mr. F. ROBERTS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the almost universal praise which was expressed at the conduct of the police, especially of the officer who was mounted on a white horse?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Yes, Sir; I am delighted at it, and I hope that praise will be spread abroad.

Mr. MOSLEY: May I—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order!" and "Sit down!"]

Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member has any further questions, he had better put them down.

Mr. MOSLEY: Mr. Speaker, on a point of Order. May I—

Mr. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Gentleman desire to make a personal explanation?

Mr. MOSLEY: Yes, Sir. May I make it clear that my question was not in any sense a reflection upon the police who were present—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"]—but merely a suggestion that there were not sufficient there?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The hon. Member's question asks "the reasons for the defective police arrangements." [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"]

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

RATES.

Sir ERNEST HILEY: 66.
asked the Minister of Agriculture from what date the proposed reduction in the assessments on agricultural land is to take place; whether the basis of the new Exchequer contributions will be the total of the amounts appearing in the valuation lists at such date; whether such basis will be revised from year to year: and whether the basis upon which the Exchequer contributions are payable under the Agricultural Rates Act, 1896, will be brought up to date, so that the total Exchequer contributions in respect of agricultural land assessments will be calculated and paid upon the basis of the total of the existing assessments?

Sir R. SANDERS: As the Chancellor of the Exchequer has already announced, it is the intention of the Government that the reduction in the assessment of agricultural land shall take effect as from the beginning of this financial year. The precise basis of the Exchequer grant to be given in respect of the loss so caused in local revenues is at present under consideration, but, as my hon. Friend will see from the reply given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the hon. and learned Member for West Fulham on the 26th
April, there is no intention of increasing the grant payable under the Agricultural Rates Act, 1896.

SEASALTER AND HAM FISHERY ORDER.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 67.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that the recent Seasalter and Ham Fishery Order confers monopoly rights, over a large area in the estuary of the Thames off the north-east coast of Sheppey, on the Seasalter and Ham Oyster Fishery Company for 60 years, and that a considerable number of independent fishermen will be deprived of their livelihood; and whether, in view of the hardship that will be created, he will reconsider his decision to introduce a confirming Bill?

Sir R. SANDERS: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part of the question, this point was thoroughly investigated at a public inquiry recently held at Whitstable, and I am unable to agree that the granting of the Order to the Seasalter and Ham Oyster Fishery Company will prejudice the livelihood of any of the fishermen. The answer to the third part of the question is, therefore, in the negative.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in depriving these people of their opportunity of making a living, they are increasing the unemployment difficulty instead of reducing it?

Sir R. SANDERS: I am informed that there is no foundation whatever for the allegation that they are being deprived of the opportunity of making a living. An inquiry has already been held, and it has been found that no appreciable injury will be done to anybody.

MALTING BARLEY.

Mr. LAMBERT: 71.
asked the Minister of Agriculture when he proposes to introduce legislation for levying an Excise duty on foreign malting barley; and what steps will be taken to prevent such duty raising the price of feeding barley?

Sir R. SANDERS: I am not able at the moment to say when the proposed Bill will be introduced. The duty on imported malting barley will be collected at the brewery, distillery, or malt-house, and I do not think the price of feeding barley will be affected.

Major RUGGLES-BRISE: 76.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in framing any Measure dealing with the duty on imported malting barley, he will consider means whereby the screenings taken out of malting barley after delivery at the malting or brewery will be exempt from such duty, in view of the fact that they can only he used for feeding purposes?

Sir R. SANDERS: I will note my hon. and gallant Friend's suggestion for consideration in framing the proposed Bill.

Mr. HUGHES: 74.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he consulted the brewers regarding the proposed tax of 10s. per quarter on imported malted barley; and whether he consulted the distillers and other parties interested?

Mr. BALDWIN: The Government did not consult either of the industries concerned in regard to the policy of a duty on imported malting barley. The discussion with the brewers was limited to the possible effect of the imposition of such a duty upon the arrangement made with them as to the immediate lowering of retail prices by 1d. a pint, following the passing of the Budget Resolution.

Captain BENN: How is it proposed to identify this barley at the place of delivery, as against home grown barley?

Mr. BALDWIN: I do not know if that arises out of the question, but I think that would be a legitimate matter for discussion on the Bill.

Mr. HARRIS: Has not the Government promised not to tax either food or raw material, and is it not both?

Mr. BALDWIN: That depends on whether you consider beer a food.

GOVERNMENT BILLS.

Major RUGGLES-BRISE: 77.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if he is in a position to indicate when the Bill or Bills dealing with credit facilities to farmers, rating adjustments, duty on imported malting barley, and other matters relating to agriculture are likely to be introduced; whether these matters are to be comprehended in one or in separate Measures; and whether, in view of the urgency of the situation, steps will be taken to expedite the introduction of the necessary legislation especially in regard to credit facilities?

Sir R. SANDERS: I am not yet in a position to name a date for the introduction of the Bills referred to by my hon. and gallant Freind, but I realise the urgency of the matter, and there will be no unnecessary delay. It will be necessary to introduce separate Bills dealing with credit facilities and with the reduction in the assessment of agricultural land.

Mr. LAMBERT: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the Bill relating to credit facilities for farmers will be introduced?

Sir R. SANDERS: I am afraid I cannot.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman still hopeful to avoid an Autumn Session with these Bills coming on?

Sir R. SANDERS: That is not a question for me to answer.

COMMON PASTURE.

Mr. NOEL BUXTON: 81.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether the county councils have in any cases created commons in connection with the provision of small holdings; and, if so, whether he will give figures showing the number and the approximate total acreage?

Sir R. SANDERS: I presume that the hon. Member refers to the provision of common pasture for tenants of small holdings provided by county councils. I have no detailed information as to any such provision, but I am advised that the acreage let in this way is very small.

ARABLE CULTIVATION.

Mr. N. BUXTON: 82.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is yet able to state, having regard to the fact that between 1919 and 1922 over 1,000,000 acres of land in England and Wales went out of arable cultivation, and that in the same period the total area returned as permanent pasture or as rough grazing has increased by less than 500,000 acres, to what purposes the balance of over 500,000 acres is now employed?

Sir R. SANDERS: The reduction of 500,000 acres to which the hon. Member refers is spread over several years, during which there were material changes in the distribution of land. During the War the area devoted to agricultural purposes
largely increased, but a proportion of this land was only diverted to agriculture as a temporary measure, and it was natural that after the conclusion of the War much of it should revert to its previous uses. While, therefore, part of the decrease is explained by the withdrawal of land for building and industrial purposes or for occupation in areas of one acre or less, a proportion is due to the reversion of land to non-agricultural purposes, such as allotments, which are not included in the Agricultural Returns, building estates ploughed up during the War, and park land.

Mr. BUXTON: Does the right hon. Gentleman think his information is now complete, or whether, as he suggested a week ago, there is still some doubt about it, and, if so, will he name a date when further statistics might be given?

Sir R. SANDERS: I am not entirely satisfied that we have found this half-million acres of land, but to go exhaustively into the question would involve examining every Return that has been made during a considerable number of years, and really, as this is more a question of theory than anything else, I do not think it would be worth the trouble and expense of doing it.

Mr. BUXTON: 83.
further asked the Minister of Agriculture the percentage increase of the present acreage of arable land over the pre-War acreage in England and Wales?

Sir R. SANDERS: The acreage of arable land in England and Wales in 1922 was practically 3 per cent. greater than in 1914. The increase in acreage was 312,000 acres.

STRATTON PARK ESTATE, BIGGLESWADE.

Mr. LINFIELD: 69.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if he will consider the case of the three tenants on the Stratton Park Estate, Biggleswade, who, after a tenancy of over 20 years, were given notice to quit at Michaelmas, 1921, so that the land might be available for ex-service men, and who are now refused compensation for disturbance on the ground that the notice of claim was made orally and not in writing; and if he is aware that the county council, the land agent, and all connected with this case have recommended
that, as the men gave a verbal notice and were ignorant of the need for giving it in writing, they should be granted the compensation they would have otherwise been entitled to?

Sir R. SANDERS: Parliament laid down in the Agriculture Act, 1920, that compensation for disturbance shall not be payable unless the tenant has, not less than one month before the termination of the tenancy, given notice in writing of his intention to make a claim. The men referred to in the hon. Member's question failed to do this, and they have, therefore, no legal right to compensation for disturbance. I cannot agree that the facts are as stated in the last part of the question, though I understand that the County Small Holdings Committee were in favour of an ex-gratia payment not exceeding half a year's rent being paid. My predecessor carefully considered this recommendation, but came to the conclusion that there was no good reason for waiving the requirements of the Act, and I am not prepared to depart from his decision.

Mr. LINFIELD: If the facts are as stated in the latter part of the question, will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the answer he has given?

Sir R. SANDERS: All this happened 18 months ago; my predecessor went into it more than six months ago and came to a decision, and I do not think I ought to reopen an old story like that.

ORDNANCE SURVEY, SOUTHAMPTON.

Mr. SHINWELL: 70.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether any machinery at the Ordnance Survey at Southampton has been recently disposed of; what is the amount received for the same, and to whom the sale was made; and whether it is the intention of the Ministry to reduce the volume of work undertaken at these works?

Sir R. SANDERS: Some machinery, which is no longer required, has recently been disposed of to Messrs. George Mann & Co., London, and to Messrs. Pollock Brown & Co., Southampton, for £865 and £25 respectively. No reduction in the volume of work is being made other than that to be secured by the economies
resulting from the adoption of the recommendations of the Committee on National Expenditure.

Mr. SHINWELL: 72.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether entrants to the Ordnance Survey at Southampton are only accepted on condition of their enrolling in the Royal Engineers at the age of 18; and whether such conditions have been prescribed by Parliament?

Sir R. SANDERS: There has been no recruitment since the decision of the Government on the recommendation of the Committee on National Expenditure to reduce the establishment of the Ordnance Survey to a strength of one thousand. When recruitment starts again, it will be necessary to prescribe the condition mentioned in the case of some of the entrants so as to increase the strength of the Royal Engineer Survey Companies, which is being kept much below the authorised number in order to avoid discharges of civilians. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.

Mr. SHINWELL: Having regard to the fact that the major portion of the work that is now being undertaken at the Ordnance Survey, Southampton, is of a civil character, is it desirable to continue the recruitment of these men?

Sir R. SANDERS: I think it is, quite. We want men in the Royal Engineers who are adapted for this survey.

MERCHANDISE MARKS BILL.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 78.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that the Chamber of Horticulture, which he consulted with reference to the Merchandise Marks Bill now before the House, consists chiefly of growers and manufacturers of manures; and if he will explain why he did not consult the National Federation of Fruit and Potato Trades Associations, consisting of 38 affiliated associations and approximately 3,000 members who are affected by the Bill, before promising Government support to the Measure?

Mr. BECKER: Before the right hon. Gentleman replies, may I ask the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) what kind of manures are grown?

Sir R. SANDERS: No, Sir. I cannot agree that the position is as described by the hon. and gallant Member. With regard to the second part of the question, I may remind the hon. and gallant Member that the Bill is promoted by a private Member. I cannot agree that the Government is bound to consult trade organisations before deciding whether or not it should support such a Bill.

BARKING EDUCATION COMMITTEE.

Captain MARTIN: 95.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that the Board have refused to make any grant towards the expenditure incurred by the Barking Education Authority in paying compensation to Mr. J. T. Edwards, under the rules of the Treasury, on the abolition of his office as secretary to the Education Committee; and, if so, whether he can say why this grant has been refused?

Mr. WOOD: Mr. Edwards at the date of his retirement was in his 70th year, and it appeared to the Board that the real effect of the authority's action was to award him a pension on retirement by reason of old age. As he was unpensionable, the Board did not feel justified in recognising the expenditure as expenditure in aid of which Parliamentary grants should be made to the authority.

NAVAL CORDITE FACTORY, HOLTON HEATH.

Mr. CHARLES DUNCAN: 87.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty whether the Board of Admiralty will reconsider the application of the employés at Holton Heath cordite factory for a renewal of the railway allowance, in view of the exceptional circumstances owing to the absence of housing accommodation and the heavy burden borne by the employés in the payment of rail fares?

Commander EYRES-MONSELL: I regret that the Board, while fully apprised of the particular circumstances in regard to the absence of housing accommodation in the immediate neighbourhood of the factory, have found themselves unable to depart from the established
principle that workpeople must be expected to find their own way from their homes to the place of employment.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

OFFICE ACCOMMODATION, TOTTENHAM.

Major MALONE: 88.
asked the Postmaster-General whether, in view of representations made to him by the Tottenham District Council as to the need for proper Post Office accommodation in that district, he is prepared to give assurance that no further delay will be permitted in carrying out this work?

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir William Joynson-Hicks): In the absence of suitable premises in the neighbourhood, it has not been possible, up to the present, to improve the Post Office accommodation at Tottenham by providing a branch office. The accommodation at the sub-Post Office at High Cross, to which the Tottenham District Council referred in their representation, is normally sufficient for public requirements. Post Office business only is transacted, and six assistants are employed.

Major MALONE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the local authorities have on several occasions represented to his Department that this is a disgrace to the neighbourhood?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I do not know about the exact language, but I know there has been dissatisfaction expressed. My Department has not, up to the present, been able to find a suitable site.

Mr. R. MORRISON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the local authorities and all business people in the district are of opinion that the premises are totally unsuitable?

PICTURE POSTCARDS.

Sir A. HOLBROOK: 89.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he will now withdraw the Regulation under which only five words may be written on picture postcards posted at the half-penny rate; and whether he is aware that this concession is not only vital to the welfare of the British pictorial postcard industry, but will also benefit the revenue?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which
I gave to a question on this subject put by the hon. Member for Montrose Burghs (Mr. Sturrock) on the 27th March.

INDIAN FRONTIER OPERATIONS (MEDALS).

Sir A. HOLBROOK: 96.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for War when the Indian general service medal will be issued to troops engaged in the Kuki Chin operations on the North-East Indian Frontier in 1918?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Lieut.-Colonel Guinness): The India general service medal is not issuable for these operations. The troops in question are eligible for the British war and victory medals, which are being issued to them in ordinary course.

Sir A. HOLBROOK: Were not special medals issued for the North-West India operations of a similar character?

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: In any case, they could not possibly get both the special medal and great War medals for the same operation, and the grant of the two great War medals would seem to have been the more favourable alternative.

GRETNA (HOUSES).

Dr. CHAPPLE: 97.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for War how many houses are vacant in Gretna, including the houses that would be available if those originally intended to be subdivided were converted into dwellings?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Major Boyd-Carpenter): I have been asked to answer this question. In the townships of Gretna and Eastriggs there are 10 brick-built cottages vacant, and 26 blocks of brick hostels capable of conversion into 249 cottages. There are also in these villages 195 temporary wooden bungalows vacant.

HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT (STAR COURT).

Viscount CURZON: 84.
asked the First Commissioner of Works when the clearance of the Star Court will be completed?

Colonel ASHLEY (for the First Commissioner of Works): The Court will be completely cleared by Thursday next.

WANDSWORTH PRISON.

Mr. BROTHERTON: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether Ernest Taylor, who was discharged from the prison service as the result of injuries received in the execution of his duty at Wandsworth prison in May, 1904, will receive a pension or gratuity?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: As I explained in reply to the hon. Member for the Harrow Division (Mr. Mosley) on the 18th of this month, Mr. Taylor's condition, which rendered him unfit for further prison service, was found not to be attributable to injury sustained in the execution of his duty. As a temporary employé he was not eligible far any payment under the Superannuation Acts, and there is no power to make any grant to him from public funds.

Mr. HAYES: Is it not a fact that Taylor was seriously injured as a result

of a murderous attack by a number of convicts under his charge; that from the day he was attacked he has never done any real work, and has been an epileptic subject since then; and that his circumstances are such that an ex gratia pension would be an act of consideration?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: So far as ex gratia pensions are concerned, I am afraid there is no power to give them. As to the history of this matter, it has been gone into over and over again by my predecessor, and there has been a medical report upon it. I am very sorry indeed for this man, but I am afraid it would be impossible to reopen the case.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings in Committee on Housing, etc. (No. 2), [Money] be exempted, at this day's sitting, front the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. Baldwin.]

The House divided: Ayes, 231; Noes, 112.

Division No. 115.]
AYES.
[3.55 p.m.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Frece, Sir Walter de


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton, East)
Cautley, Henry Strother
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.


Alexander, Col. M. (Southwark)
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Furness, G. J.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Galbraith, J. F. W.


Apsley, Lord
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Ganzoni, Sir John


Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin
Churchman, Sir Arthur
Gates, Percy


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W.
Clayton, G. C.
Gaunt, Rear-Admiral Sir Guy R.


Astor, J. J. (Kent, Dover)
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Goff, Sir R. Park


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.
Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Gwynne, Rupert S.


Banks, Mitchell
Cope, Major William
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.


Barlow, Rt. Hon. Sir Montague
Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W. (Liv'p'I, W. D'by)


Barnston, Major Harry
Croft, Lieut.-Colonel Henry Page
Haistead, Major D.


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar (Banff)
Crook, C. W. (East Ham, North)
Hamilton, Sir George C. (Altrincham)


Becker, Harry
Crooke, J. S. (Deritend)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)


Bennett, Sir T. J. (Sevenoaks)
Dalziel, Sir D. (Lambeth, Brixton)
Harrison, F. C.


Bantinck, Lord Henry Cavendish
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Harvey, Major S. E.


Berry, Sir George
Dawson, Sir Philip
Hay, Major T. W. (Norfolk, South)


Betterton, Henry B.
Dixon, C. H. (Rutland)
Henn, Sir Sydney H.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Doyle, N. Grattan
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Du Pre, Colonel William Baring
Herbert Dennis (Hertford, Watford)


Blundell, F. N.
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Herbert, S. (Scarborough)


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Ednam, Viscount
Hewett, Sir J. P.


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Hiley, Sir Ernest


Brass, Captain W.
Ellis, R. G.
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.


Brassey, Sir Leonard
England, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy


Brittain, Sir Harry
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard


Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)
Erskine-Bolst, Captain C.
Hood, Sir Joseph


Buckingham, Sir H.
Evans, Ernest (Cardigan)
Hopkins, John W. W.


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Falcon, Captain Michael
Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.)


Burn, Colonel Sir Charles Rosdew
Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K.


Burney, Com. (Middx., Uxbridge)
Fermor-Hesketh, Major T.
Hudson, Capt. A.


Butcher, Sir John George
Ford, Patrick Johnston
Hughes, Collingwood


Butler, H. M. (Leeds, North)
Foreman, Sir Henry
Hurd, Percy A.


Button, H. S.
Forestier-Walker, L.
Hurst, Lt.-Col. Gerald Berkeley


Cadogan, Major Edward
Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Hutchison, G. A. C. (Midlothian, N.)


Hutchison, W. (Kelvingrove)
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)
Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.


Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Nield, Sir Herbert
Spender-Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H.


James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Stanley, Lord


Jarrett, G. W. S.
Paget, T. G.
Steel, Major S. Strang


Jenkins, W. A. (Brecon and Radnor)
Penny, Frederick George
Stewart, Gershom (Wirral)


Jephcott, A. R.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H.


Jodrell, Sir Neville Paul
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Joynson-Hicks, Sir William
Peto, Basil E.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid H.


Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham)
Pielou, D. P.
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Kennedy, Captain M. S. Nigel
Pilditch, Sir Philip
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


King, Capt. Henry Douglas
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)


Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Price, E. G.
Titchfield, Marquess of


Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Colonel G. R.
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Reid, D. D. (County Down)
Tubbs, S. W.


Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Remer, J. R.
Turton, Edmund Russborough


Lorden, John William
Remnant, Sir James
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Lorimer, H. D.
Rentoul, G. S.
Wallace, Captain E.


Lumley, L. R.
Rhodes, Lieut.-Col. J. P.
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Richardson, Sir Alex, (Gravesend)
Waring, Major Walter


McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)
Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)
Wells, S. R.


Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)
White, Lt.-Col. G. D. (Southport)


Margesson, H. D. R.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. Sir S. (Ecclesall)
Whitla, Sir William


Martin, A. E. (Essex, Romford)
Robertson-Despencer, Major (Isl'gt'n W.)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Mason, Lieut-Col. C. K.
Rogerson, Capt. J. E.
Winterton, Earl


Mercer, Colonel H.
Roundell, Colonel R. F.
Wise, Frederick


Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Waiden)
Ruggles-Brise, Major E.
Wolmer, Viscount


Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Molloy, Major L. G. S.
Russell-Wells, Sir Sydney
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Molson, Major John Elsdale
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Wood, Maj. Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.
Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A.
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Moreing, Captain Aigernon H.
Sandon, Lord
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Morrison, Hugh (Wilts, Salisbury)
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward


Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)
Yerburgh, R. D. T.


Murchison, C. K.
Skelton, A. N.



Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Somerville, Daniel (Barrow-in-Furness)
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Colonel


Newson, Sir Percy Wilson
Sparkes, H. W.
Gibbs.


Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)




NOES.


Adams, D.
Harris, Percy A.
Pringle, W. M. R.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hay, Captain J. P. (Cathcart)
Richards, R.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hayes, John Henry (Edge Hill)
Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Robinson, W. C. (York, Elland)


Barnes, A.
Hinds, John
Rose, Frank H.


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Hodge, Rt. Hon. John
Royce, William Stapleton


Bennett, A. J. (Mansfield)
Hogge, James Myles
Salter, Dr. A.


Berkeley, Captain Reginald
Irving, Dan
Shaw, Thomas (Preston)


Bonwick, A.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Shinwell, Emanuel


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Simpson, J. Hope


Briant, Frank
Johnstone, Harcourt (Willesden, East)
Snell, Harry


Broad, F. A.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Snowden, Philip


Brotherton, J.
Jowett, F. W. (Bradford, East)
Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.


Buchanan, G.
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Stephen, Campbell


Burgess, S.
Kenyon, Barnet
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Buxton, Charles (Accrington)
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)
Lansbury, George
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Chapple, W. A.
Leach, W.
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Charleton, H. C.
Lee, F.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Clarke, Sir E. C.
Lees-Smith, H. B. (Keighley)
Thornton, M.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Linfield, F. C.
Trevelyan, C. P.


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Lowth, T.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
MacDonald, J. R. (Aberavon)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
M'Entee, V. L.
Webb, Sidney


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
McLaren, Andrew
Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
March, S.
Weir, L. M.


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Marshall, Sir Arthur H.
White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)


Duncan, C.
Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, E.)
White, H. G. (Birkenhead, E.)


Ede, James Chuter
Millar, J. D.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Edmonds, G.
Morel, E. D.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Falconer, J.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Wintringham, Margaret


Gray, Frank (Oxford)
Mosley, Oswald
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Greenall, T.
Muir, John W.
Wright, W.


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Murray, Hon. A. C. (Aberdeen)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Groves, T.
Newbold, J. T. W.



Guthrie, Thomas Mauie
O'Grady, Captain James
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Mr. Arthur Henderson and Mr.


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Phillipps, Vivian
W. Graham.


Harbord, Arthur
Ponsonby, Arthur



Bill read the Third time, and passed.

TEES VALLEY WATER BOARD BILL.

Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

SPECIAL CONSTABLES BILL.

Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee B.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 63.]

Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed. [No. 63.]

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 108.]

Orders of the Day — LOCAL AUTHORITIES (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS) BILL.

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

Mr. LANSBURY: Before this Bill finally passes from the purview of the House, I would like to put on record one or two statements with regard to it. Those of us who are interested as the receiving unions or boroughs are only accepting this Bill as a temporary compromise to tide us over the period for which the Bill will run. I would remind the House that at this time of the year 12 months ahead we shall be practically in the same position as we were in the early part of this year, because the Bill is to end on 1st April next year. The position then will be that either new legislation must be brought in or the poorer boroughs will relapse into the condition in which they were before the original Act was passed. I think the House, and certainly the Minister of Health, ought to face the fact that this Bill deals with a temporary emergency, and that emergency only accentuates the difficulty that has been in existence for many years past. The question of equalising the rates of London and of compelling the richer boroughs to assist in bearing the burden of poorer boroughs has been one that has agitated certainly the poorer boroughs for the last 30 or 40 years, in fact, ever since the creation of the unions and of the separate local authorities.
This Bill only carries us over another temporary period, and I would like to point out, for the satisfaction of hon. Members who represent the paying-in boroughs, that, in spite of the enormous drain that the East End boroughs have made upon them, the fact remains that in some cases their rates are only half, and in other cases are only two-thirds, of the rates in the poorer boroughs. The original Act and all that has been done under it has not in any sort of way equalised the burden. I am not denying that it has relieved the burden to, some
extent, but what really has happened is that you have put 1s. on to Westminster, a little over 1s. on to Kensington, and about the same amount on to the City of London, and that is all the burden that has been placed upon them. You will not get this matter settled satisfactorily until the whole of the burden of the Poor Law is placed on an altogether different footing, and I want to ask the House to consider whether long before April next somebody ought not to sit down—I suppose it is the business of the Cabinet—and think out either a new plan, or adopt the plan of one or other of the two Committees that have been considering the question or one or other of the reports of the Poor Law Commission. The question cannot be left where it is, and my object this afternoon is to give the Minister of Health and the House notice that those of us who come from the poorer boroughs are not going to rest content with merely this tiding of us over a temporary period We want this problem of dealing with[...] poor dealt with not merely for London, but for the whole of the country. It was said in the Debate on Friday that the Bill which was then brought in would establish the right to work or maintenance. As a matter of fact, the 43rd of Elizabeth gave that right. That right is the basic principle of the Poor Law, and it is that right which the poorer boroughs are called upon, as it were, to put into operation.
The fearful thing that we in the industrial boroughs have to face is that because of the fact that we are industrial boroughs, and because our population is very largely poor working people, we are forced to bear the burden almost alone. This not only applies to unemployment, but to the effects of unemployment. It is a kind of vicious circle. First of all, you have the poverty, and then you have all the evils that come from the poverty in the shape of relief of the poor, public health services, and so on. This afternoon I particularly want to get from the Minister some sort of promise or pledge that this question is not going to be allowed to go to sleep until next spring, and then another Emergency Bill simply brought in. I say to the representatives of the richer boroughs that we do not want to put our hands into their pockets and spend money just as we want it to be spent, but we do want the burden of maintaining the poor to be taken off our shoulders. If it be necessary that there
shall be an entire re-arrangement of the administration of the Poor Law in order to give effect to that, we are perfectly willing to agree to it. There ought long ago to have been one Union for London dealing with the whole of the Poor Law. I do not believe that you will get the matter satisfactorily settled until there is such a Union. That is, if you are going to perpetuate the present Poor Law system, but I would rather that something entirely different was done. I want the Minister to understand that, although we have accepted the promise and are getting less money than we think we are entitled to, although we have accepted the date and do not want to stop the Bill going through, yet we do think that long before next April he should produce a permanent scheme whereby this business of dealing with the unemployed shall be taken out of the hands of the local authorities and dealt with nationally. If you do not do that, then give us a permanent scheme whereby London may deal with this problem as a whole instead of separating it up into rich and poor districts.

Sir G. COLLINS: The hon. Member who has just sat down has addressed one or two questions to the Minister of Health. May I address one or two questions to the hon. and gallant Member (Captain Elliot) who represents the Scottish Office in this House. He is aware no doubt of the extraordinarily uneven burden which this Measure places upon local authorities in Scotland. I have taken out from several papers the exact burden which this Measure has in the past placed on local authorities. Let me give one or two figures to the hon. and gallant Member. Dundee, where the population exceeds 168,000, the total cost of maintaining the unemployed from October, 1921, to February this year amounts to 4s. per head of the population; in Bothwell the cost is 7s. 6d. per head; and in Aberdeen, a large town of 158,000 inhabitants, the cost is 6s. per head of population. I now come to one or two cases where the burden is extremely heavy. In Govan, for instance, where there is a population of 372,000, the burden per head of population is 18s., and in my own constituency of Greenock the burden is 16s. 6d. When this Bill becomes law that burden will continue. Surely the hon. and gallant Member does not think it fair or right that during this period of unemployment
industry in the towns which I have mentioned, Govan and Greenock, should have that extraordinarily heavy and unequal burden placed on their shoulders, not only on their shoulders to-day, but for all time.
On Thursday last the Minister of Health told the Committee that there were certain sums available from the Unemployed Insurance Fund, and if there be sums available in the Unemployment Insurance Fund could the hon. and gallant Member not see his way, if this Bill becomes law, to earmark certain portions of that Fund where unemployment is extremely heavy. No hon. Member in any quarter of the House, I am sure, wishes to see such an unequal and unfair burden placed upon industry in these various towns. It is through no fault of their own that the burden is so heavy. The burden is heavy to-day because of the legislation which was passed in October, 1921. This Bill stereotypes that heavy burden. The hon. and gallant Member will, I feel sure, understand my attitude this afternoon. The figures which I have quoted are taken from tables supplied to me by the clerk to the parish council of Greenock. I will willingly hand the hon. and gallant Member that information, and I hope, before the Question is put from the Chair, that we may have some assurance from him that the unfair and unequal burden on certain localities in Scotland will receive the consideration of His Majesty's Government.

Mr. DUNCAN MILLAR: I am anxious at this stage to protest against the tacking on to an English Bill of provisions affecting Scotland which ought to be dealt with in a separate Scottish Measure. There has been throughout this discussion a strong expression of opinion against applying the same Bill to different portions of the United Kingdom. As the principal Act related purely to Scotland, I wish to point out to the hon. and gallant Gentleman who represents the Scottish Office that this is a singularly clear case for introducing a Scottish Measure. At any rate I hope he will not regard this as a precedent which we are prepared to accept in the future, because we shall on every such occasion enter our protest against Scotland's claims being dealt with under an English Measure.
My other point is that under this Bill a very severe burden of rating is going to
be laid on a limited number of local authorities in Scotland, and about 160 out of 900 parish councils will have to shoulder the burden of unemployment pay provided under this Bill. This burden is one which the representative of the Scottish Office himself recognises, and has recognised in Committee, ought not to fall solely on individual parishes, and he recognised distinctly that this was a matter which ought to be carefully reconsidered with a view to spreading the burden instead of penalising a few districts where unemployment was more prevalent. We claim that the rate ought to be applied in the form of a national grant. If it is going to be placed on the rates, I urge that the hon. and gallant Member should apply himself to the consideration of this problem between now and the date to which this Measure is extended next year.
I trust we may have an assurance now that it is not intended to come to the House of Commons again next year, and ask us to give a further extension of the alteration of the Scottish Poor Law which is being sanctioned now owing to the emergency situation which has been created at this particular time. I want to make it perfectly clear that if circumstances should render it desirable for this matter to be dealt with next year, we must have from the Government some undertaking that we are not going to be asked simply to repeat the provisions passed this year, but that a clear and well thought-out scheme will be put before the House spreading the burden. The hon. and gallant Gentleman stated in Committee that this Bill is a temporary provision, that the subject will come up again in a year's time, and suggestions can be tabled during that time as to the spreading of the burden in a reasonable way. We shall expect the hon. and gallant Gentleman to fulfil that undertaking and put into shape, if necessity should call for further consideration next year in order to relieve the unemployed, something of a very different character to that which is put forward now, and which is embodied in this Bill. I feel sure that the hon. and gallant Member will recognise that I am only expressing a strong feeling which exists in Scotland when I put that point to him, and I trust he will be able to give us an
undertaking that he does not propose to come forward with similar proposals next year, but that he will be able to work out a much fairer scheme for Scotland next year.

Colonel Sir CHARLES YATE: With reference to what has just been said by the hon. Member for Greenock (Sir G. Collins) and the hon. and learned Member for East Fife (Mr. Millar), may I ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman representing the Scottish Office if he will obtain the assent of the Prime Minister to bring in a devolution scheme for Scotland, to enable the Scottish people to light out their own schemes of rating, employment and housing amongst themselves in Edinburgh.

Mr. SPEAKER: That is a question which does not arise on the Third Reading, and we must confine ourselves to what is dealt with in the Bill.

Mr. MACPHERSON: We are deeply grateful to the hon. Member for the Melton Division (Sir C. Yate) for the suggestion he has made about devolution, even if his suggestion was out of order in this Debate. I feel sure that he is expressing the view of his own party on that point, from the. Prime Minister downwards. I think he has expressed the views on this point of Scottish representatives from all parts of Scotland at the present time. It is a very significant fact that in the first order of the day an hon and gallant Gentleman who is an Englishman should have got up and put forward a principle of that kind, and we should be delighted if the hon and gallant Gentleman and his friends would support that form of devolution which we are asking for.
I feel that I am a little bit out of order in dealing with this question, but it is rather significant that there are two Orders on the Paper. The first is the one we are now discussing, and the second is one which will be discussed in a short time. I wish to draw attention to the fact that there is a strong opinion in Scotland in favour of this question being dealt with by a separate Bill, and I agree with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Fife (Mr. Millar) upon the two points which he addressed to the House. It must be realised by those representing the Scottish Office that Scottish conditions so far as this Bill are concerned are quite different from those obtaining in England
In the second place, I wish to make an appeal to the hon. and gallant Gentleman that he should attempt to spread the burden all over Scotland, and that this burden should be in the form of a national grant, and that no individual parish council should be asked to bear what to it may be an inordinate burden. On this point I wish to emphasise the warning which has been given by my hon. and learned Friend that next year Scotland will demand that its interests should be considered, and I hope my hon. and gallant Friend, on the Floor of the House, will give us a promise that he will fulfil the pledges which he has given on this subject upstairs.

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: Before we part with this Bill there is one question I wish to put to the Minister of Health. The House is aware that this Measure had its origin in the grossly unequal burden of Poor Law charges in the case of certain Poor Law authorities in the Metropolitan boroughs. Reference has been made to Scotland, and Scottish Members do not appear to be satisfied with this reference. What I ask of the Minister of Health, having dealt with Scotland and the Metropolitan boroughs, is that he should do for the provincial boroughs of England and Wales what he is proposing to do for the Metropolitan boroughs. Having put that question, I hope the representative of the Scottish Office will realise that the inequalities are even greater in some parts of industrial England than they are in the Metropolitan boroughs, or even in Scotland.

Mr. NICHOL: I should like to add a word in reference, to the Third Clause which deals with Scotland. I feel that the first part of this Bill is framed in such a way in the first two Clauses as to spread over the burden of unemployment in the Metropolitan boroughs, but when we come to the Third Clause it has merely been tacked on to the other provisions, with which it has nothing at all to do, in order to get over one historical difficulty. It seems that Scotland was never ruled over by Queen Elizabeth, with the result that Scotland never had the benefit of the Poor Law that was put into operation in the Southern Kingdom during her reign. An appeal was made on a former occasion that Scotland should have a separate Bill, and it is claimed that that
would really meet the situation. I may say, in conncction with the request that Scotland should have powers granted to manage her own affairs, that we in this House have made some effort to have an official meeting of the Scottish Members in the Grand Committee upstairs, but the difficulties that the Government would have had to face before that Committee have led, I am afraid, to a complete refusal to call the Committee together. At least the interesting experiment in connection with further legislation of actually getting the Members who represent Scottish constituencies together ought to be made without any further delay. I suggest that we certainly ought to have that Committee set up in connection with the Housing Bill.
There are two points in the Bill itself which seem to call for some remarks. In the first place, it is the case, as has been pointed out, that only one in six of the parish councils in Scotland is seriously affected by the unemployment payments, and instead of having a spread over, as the Bill provides for the Metropolitan boroughs, the position has now become very strongly accentuated. I need not go into the figures for such districts as Cathcart and Govan, where there is a remarkable difference in the rate when you cross from one side of a particular street to the other side, nor need I refer to many other anomalies. In the Committee a pledge was given that the grant to a parish council would be by means of a lump sum. It appears to me that this is bringing into Scottish affairs a policy which has been tried, and which has failed here on previous occasions; that is the policy of subsidising wages out of Poor Law relief, On that point I think we ought to have some statement from the Minister in charge of this Bill.
In conclusion, I would just like to refer to the chief point, which is that when the main provision is brought forward, and when new legislation is proposed, instead of disjointed Debates such as always occur on these double-barreled Bills, Scottish Members ought to have a proper opportunity of discussing their affairs in the Scottish Grand Committee, a method that can only be obtained if a separate Bill is decided upon.

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Neville Chamberlain): I merely rise for the purpose of answering one or two
questions which have been addressed to me. The hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) asked me to take notice that when this Bill came to an end he was not satisfied with what he had got, and he was going to ask for more. I would do him less than justice if I expected anything less from him. It seemed to me that he raised the question of the reform of the Poor Law generally. I do not think it would be in order to discuss that on a Bill which deals only with London and the Metropolitan boroughs. I have no doubt that, sooner or later, that very large question will have to be considered, but whether it would be desirable to upset our present system when we are asked to cope with such extraordinary stress and strain as we are, with our present volume of unemployment, is a question which, to my mind, will require very serious consideration. After all, no one will deny that the boards of guardians throughout the country have dealt with an extremely difficult situation with great sympathy and zeal, and, on the whole, with great success. With regard to the minor point, as to what is to happen when this comes to an end, I accept the hon. Member's notice. This Bill is dealing with an emergency and must be for a limited time, and if the emergency still continues when the Bill has come to an end, obviously we must go into the matter and see what further measure is required Between now and 1924 we shall be able to have opportunities of discussing these matters further with him. Answering the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. T. Thomson), I would remind him that there is no parallel to the London governments anywhere in the country. You find nowhere else the dual administration as it exists in London, and I think you have a similar system nowhere else.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: There are more—

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: There is no great aggregation of metropolitan boroughs such as we have in London, and therefore there is no analogy between them and London. What the hon. Member for Middlesbrough West wants is a grant from the Exchequer.

Mr. WILLIAM GRAHAM: I rise for the purpose of putting a question to the Under-Secretary for Health for Scotland.
There is one point in the short discussion on the Third Reading which has been omitted. The hon. and gallant Member will recall that in the Act of 1921, there was an understanding that the law of settlement and of recovery under that settlement would be in no way affected. That was a distinct understanding under the legislation of 1921. This Bill was introduced in the present year and there was no Clause regarding Poor Law settlement at all. We are entitled to point out that in this Measure, after Amendment in Committee upstairs, there is a Clause which expressly deletes the reference to the settlement in the previous legislation. As we understand the position, it comes to this, that under the relief of the able-bodied unemployed in Scotland, Parliament is wiping out what has been the settled practice in Scottish Poor Law system, namely, as far as possible to have recourse to the parish of settlement for recovery of any grants which may be made. My suggestion is that it is a serious step to take in this legislation and it may lead to legal and other difficulties in Scotland. The question I want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary is whether it is strictly necessary to include a Clause of that kind in the present Bill; and, if so, whether the possible legal consequences have been considered?

Captain ELLIOT (Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health, Scotland): In reply to specific points raised by the hon. Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham) there seems to be some misapprehension on this point, because the object of this Clause is not in any way to wipe out or to destroy the provisions with regard to the settlement. The purpose of this Bill is to restore those very provisions with regard to settlement which were wiped out by the previous Act. The previous Act being an emergency Measure, it was not worth while that the question of domicile should be raised; consequently, their rights were specifically cut out in the previous Act. In this Bill, on a question of long standing and with a period covering the three years of residence under which domicile may be acquired, the parish councils themselves asked us to make sure that their rights in this matter were preserved. What we have done is to insert in this Bill that the rights of the parish councils are
observed and not waived as under previous legislation they would have been. I hope that explanation is satisfactory.

Mr. GRAHAM: I am grateful for the information, but are you going to enforce the rule before the passing of this Bill?

Captain ELLIOT: The parish councils have explained that they do not wish to enforce this rule, but they wish to make sure that their legal rights are not interfered with, so that in the case of someone becoming subsequently chargeable on the parish he would not have to be deemed to have acquired domicile during the time he received outdoor relief from the parish of origin. The only difference in this case is that there is no power to recover able-bodied relief from his parish of origin. That remains from the previous year's Act. With regard to the Third Reading of this Bill as a whole, I am grateful for the succinctness with which hon. Members have voiced their objections to the Measure. The position in Scotland is different and has been different from the position of England in this matter. The provisions of last year's Act and the provisions of this Bill are, I claim, suitable for discussion in a mixed Committee, because it is impossible for us to continue. The fact that in this matter there are striking differences between the two countries cannot, in practice, continue. It would not be possible, nor, I think, would it be desirable, that while the unfortunate able-bodied unemployed were able to receive relief front England, they should be debarred by Statute from so receiving any relief in Scotland. As a matter of practice, it was found that the position could not be allowed to continue. Bitter protests were made against it in all parts of Scotland, and particularly by the Labour Press, and when provision was made, although we did not agree with the steps which were being taken, yet some steps of this nature had to be taken, and it was desirable that the position of able-bodied in Scotland should be in some measure assimilated to the position held by those in London. However much hon. Members would wish some other step to be taken, it remains, as a matter of practice, a great difficulty whether the English legislation was the legislation to change, and not the Scottish legislation. The problems raised by hon.
Members are undoubtedly grave, although several points have been raised which are not perhaps so striking, on examination of the statistics, as they appear in Scotland. No more impressive figures could be given than those quoted by the hon. and learned Member for East Fife (Mr. Millar). In the parishes expending this money, only 160 local authorities out of some 900 local authorities were suffering this charge, but when one examines the figures in the population in the parishes, one realises that within these parishes getting relief, nearly three-quarters of the population of Scotland is covered. The population outside those parishes is a population which itself has a very different problem from the population of industrial areas in those parishes. But in these cases we must realise that none of the remedies which have been suggested would meet this problem. It has been suggested that some provision similar to what has been made in the case of the Metropolitan boroughs should be brought in, and that adjacent boroughs should have their poor rates more or less equalised. But the poor area of the Clyde Valley would not thereby obtain any particular alleviation of its burden; and if it were proposed to take in widely-scattered and poverty-stricken populations of the Highlands and Islands it would be found still less practicable from the point of view of actual relief. When it is suggested, therefore, that the spreading of the burden over adjacent authorities would give alleviation, I doubt whether in actual fact that would be found to be the case. The hon. Member for East Renfrew (Mr. Nichol) brought up the case of Cathcart and Govan, which are very close together. That has already been dealt with by the local authorities themselves, who have actually petitioned that this area should be unified, and that there should be a spreading of the burden.
I do not think I could honourably promise Scottish Members that grants from the National Exchequer should be devoted to the relief of the poorer parishes in Scotland before such a Measure is carried into effect for the whole of the United Kingdom. Dealing separately with the Scottish problem is therefore ruled out, The second suggestion which immediately arises is that the burden should be unified by counties. Again we find that it would not make a very striking difference, because the
parishes which are bearing a heavy burden are the parishes which would find themselves heavily burdened in the county, if the county were taken as the unit. Proposals for taking the county as the unit have been under examination, and will be further examined, but so far I have not found that striking alleviation of the burden which we should require to be certain of before introducing so radical a change in the local administration of Scotland. It has been put forward more than once, particularly by the hon. Member for the Gorbals Division of Glasgow (Mr. Buchanan) who was on the deputation of the Members interested in this subject which waited on the Secretary for Scotland, at which I was present, that the scrapping of the machinery of the small authorities would lead to very serious administrative difficulties, of which we have had a foretaste in the larger areas for education.
The subject bristles with difficulties, and while we hope that the Scottish Office, which I have the honour to speak for, will devote more consideration to this point, I cannot here and now promise that we shall be able to table schemes dealing completely with this matter before the year has elapsed for which we are making provision under the terms of this Bill. The local authorities of Scotland, the parish councils, have borne a burden, which they were never designed to bear, with the utmost fortitude, with the utmost consideration, and, in the majority of cases, with great success. The tremendous strain which has been placed upon them has led to complaints from some authorities who feel that the economical and efficient administration, which it has been their glory to carry out, has been deformed and crushed entirely out of shape by this novel and serious burden. In the situation in which the country found itself, however, it had to make use of machinery wherever it could find it. This machinery, which has existed for so long both in Scotland and in England, lay ready to hand. The relief of the local authorities will form the subject of our most anxious consideration, and I wish to thank them, speaking from the floor of this House, for the success with which they have dealt with the matter. I realise the appeal of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ross
and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson), and I have also taken note of his warning. It is undoubtedly true that we have been allowed to obtain this Bill with a complete absence of obstruction in any form, and I can assure hon. Members that we fully realise that fact, and the Scottish Grand Committee, to whose absence exception has been taken, is in process of being set up. A private Bill of one of the Members of the Opposition will come before it in the course of a week or two.
The problem remains a United Kingdom problem. The problem of unemployment is not a sectional, but a national problem. The central machinery for dealing with this in the Insurance Acts is the central machinery which will remain. The local machinery for dealing with it must remain largely in the hands of the local authorities. Central machinery for dealing with this Act has its advantages and its difficulties. One is exemplified in the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenock (Sir G. Collins), who suggested that the funds of the Unemployment Insurance Act should be earmarked for the relief of some necessitious areas. He will realise the difficulty of using insurance money, money which is not a dole, but a right of the insured person, for supplementing funds for the relief of unemployment in other areas. [Interruption.] it is the property of the person; but the Leader of the Opposition should not address those arguments to me, but to the right hon. Gentleman who shares with him the Front Opposition Bench. The problem of unemployment is, I take it the gravest problem with which the House has to deal with. In my opinion it is even graver than that of the next question we are going to discuss, the question of housing. It is necessary to realise that it will be dealt with, as it has been the nature of this country to deal with such problems, both by a central and a local provision, and I am certain that machinery cannot be duplicated without friction, delay and great expenditure. The central authority already exists to deal to some extent with the question of the unemployed. The local authorities dealing with this matter are gaining experience and are dealing more and more effectively with it. The effects of I the great depression of trade are passing, and we hope to find ourselves, when no
longer snowed under by these urgent claims, in a position to look round and draw out plans which will be more successful in the future than those we have had in the past. But, in spite of that, some responsibility for the unemployment in an area will, I am certain have to be borne by the authorities [...] that area. It is a United Kingdom [...] which will have to be examined by [...] United Kingdom as a whole, and [...] our justification for bringing forward on this occasion a United Kingdom Measure to deal, however partially and spasmodically, with a United Kingdom problem, and that is the reason why I ask the House now to give us the Third Reading of the Bill.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I want to ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman a question on what he has said. He referred to the local authorities within the Glasgow area, and said the small parishes had already petitioned to be brought together and brought within the scope of a larger parish. I want to ask what parishes have petitioned, and whether it is not the case that the parish councils within the Clyde or the Glasgow area have not all petitioned against being brought into one bigger authority, and have attended to state their objections? Further, seeing that the whole question has been under consideration by the Secretary for Scotland, I want to ask what is the present position of the local authorities, the Glasgow parish councils, and how far the scheme of unification has taken shape at the present time?

Mr. FALCONER: I do not wish to discuss the questions which have already been discussed except to express the disappointment with which I heard the concluding part of the hon. and gallant Gentleman's remarks. I thought that every sentence up to almost the last three sentences was intended to lead up to the point that when this question came to be dealt with after full consideration it would be dealt with in a separate Scottish Bill, and that it would go to the Scottish Grand Committee for consideration. I cannot accept for myself, and I do not believe any Scottish Member will accept, the view which he put forward that because there was a problem of unemployment in England and a problem of unemployment in Scotland those two problems were one and the same. In Scotland the conditions are entirely
different. I therefore have intervened for the purpose of stating that we cannot accept the view which he has put forward, that a Bill like this can be competently dealt with if it is mixed up in its provisions with an English Bill. We find in such a Bill Clauses adjusted to English conditions which we would wish to support, but there are provisions in that English Bill with regard to Scotland we would wish to reject, and that is a situation which a Member of Parliament for Scotland ought not to be placed in. The Scottish Grand Committee was set up for the purpose of putting an end to that state of things and for the purpose of securing that Members representing a Scottish constituency should be able fully and freely to discuss Scottish questions without being involved in a consideration of what effect they might have on English questions, with which we are not, as representatives, immediately concerned.

Orders of the Day — HOUSING, Etc. (No. 2) [MONEY].

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 71A.

[Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the enactments relating to the housing of the working classes (including the amendment and revocation of building byelaws), town planning, and the acquisition of small dwellings, it is expedient to provide for the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament,—

(a) of contributions towards the expenses incurred in connection with the provision of houses of such type and size and completed within such time as may be mentioned in the said Act not exceeding a sum equal to six pounds for each house in respect of which a contribution is made payable annually for a period not exceeding twenty years:
(b) of contributions not exceeding in any case one-half of the estimated average annual loss likely to be incurred, towards the expenses incurred in connection with the carrying out of re-housing schemes, and towards expenses incurred under Sub-section (1) of Section eleven of the Housing, Town Planning, etc. (Scotland) Act. 1919;
1027
(c) of such additional percentage of the annual loan charges referred to in paragraph (b) of Sub-section (2) of Section seven and in Sub-section (2) of Section nineteen of the Housing, Town Planning, etc. Act, 1919, and the corresponding provisions of the Housing, Town Planning, etc. (Scotland), Act, 1919, as the Treasury may approve."—[King's Recommendation signified.]

5.0 P.M.

The following Amendment stood on the Order Paper in the name of Captain WEDGWOOD BENN:

After the word "proposes" ["that for the purposes of any Act"] to insert the words "of any part."

The CHAIRMAN: With regard to this Amendment, it appears to me to be unnecessary. I, therefore, pass on to the next Amendment of the hon. Member for Leith.

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: I beg to move after the word "Session" ["any Act of the present Session"] to insert the words "dealing with England and Wales."
Literally the effect of this Amendment will be to strike out Scotland from this Bill entirely. That is the only course open to those who desire to press for a separate Measure for Scotland. As the Minister of Health is probably by this time aware, Scottish Members of all parties and Scottish local authorities of all kinds consider this Bill not adequate to the needs of Scotland. I have not met any representatives of opinion in Scotland who did not feel that a separate Measure for Scotland should be presented, I cannot understand why they should not have a separate Measure. The Minister of Health, I am sure, does not want to be burdened with Scottish affairs, and the Under-Secretary for Scotland would be quite willing, I am equally sure, to take charge of a Scottish Bill. The only reason for including Scotland in this Bill is that someone hopes to have a holiday by a given time. We who represent Scotland do not want a holiday. We would rather have a separate Bill of this kind discussed by the Scottish Committee upstairs, which has had too little work to do lately. This Bill is the result of a bargain between the Minister of Health and certain large English cities. I am not complaining of the bargain. I believe a great deal of good can be done by it. Manchester and the other large cities
which were consulted by the Minister have settled on a scheme which is embodied in the Bill. On the other hand, I am not aware that Scottish opinion was consulted. Did the Minister of Health consult any representative body of Scottish local authorities on this matter?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not the Secretary for Scotland.

Captain BENN: The right hon. Gentleman is not the Secretary for Scotland and yet he is in charge of a Bill which deals with Scotland. The fact is that the Minister of Health has drafted the Bill against the protests of the Under-Secretary for Scotland. The Under-Secretary for Scotland stated, so I understood his reply, that the Bill is inadequate. I understood him to admit that in the opinion of his expert advisers—he could only be speaking in this case of the expert advisers of the Scottish Office—the cost of building a house in Scotland was greater by I think £23. That is disputed by those authorities who have put up houses. They say the cost is greater, and the figure of £23 is not accepted by anyone, except those quoted by the hon. and gallant Gentleman, as being adequately representative of the cost. Supposing this Bill be passed and supposing that no houses should be built in Scotland, does the Minister really think that housing will be promoted in Scotland by this Bill? I have met during the last two days representatives of many of the Scottish local authorities—this is not a party matter—and all parties declare this to be a worthless instrument for the purpose of promoting building in Scotland. We know from the Report of the Housing Commission that at the time they made their Report the condition of housing in Scotland was deplorable. To-day it must be much worse. The Industrial Commissioners who reported on the causes of unrest after the War, in their Report put housing prominently as a cause of unrest and disturbance. The hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Newbold) frankly said in his speech that he does not come here because the people of Motherwell believe in Bolshevist doctrines, but because the housing situation in his constituency is the worst in Scotland. We all know it is so. You could almost make a map of the political complexion of the various parts of this House if you made a map of the housing
conditions in certain parts of the country. I want to ask the Under-Secretary for Scotland this question. I understand the capital sum represented by the subsidy of £6 for 20 years is to be in this case placed at £60 or £70.

Captain ELLIOT: Seventy-five pounds.

Captain BENN: The Under-Secretary admits that £23, or we will call it £25, as his own official experts declare, represents the increased cost of building in Scotland. Does that not mean that at least an £8 subsidy in his opinion is due? Scottish opinion does not regard that as adequate, but on his own showing £8 is due. Scottish local authorities have met and passed resolutions. The Convention of Royal Burghs met and passed resolutions with which we are all familiar, and 24 representatives of Glasgow, Dundee, Perth, Dunfermline, Greenock, Aberdeen and part of Lanarkshire met and declared the following opinions:—First, that a separate Housing Bill for Scotland was necessary; second that a sum not exceeding £6 for a period not exceeding 20 years was quite inadequate, and that whatever sum was paid should be a definite figure for a guaranteed period. Further, they passed unanimously a resolution that a subsidy should be paid in respect of all the houses built. I think the case we have made out is a strong and unanswerable case. I ask any Member of the Government to give a really valid reason for not having a separate Housing Bill for Scotland. The only reason given is that put forward by the Patronage Secretary that Parliamentary time does not permit, but it is not a sufficiently strong reason for depriving Scotland of legislation suited to her needs and on which a great deal of her future prosperity must rest.

Sir F. BANBURY: Does she pay the expense?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: I support the Amendment which has been moved by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Leith (Captain W. Benn). I appeal to English Members to believe that we are not promoting this Amendment for the purpose of securing some Scottish victory, or for the purpose of getting a larger amount of money, although we believe that to be required by Scottish needs. We believe that unless a greater contribution is made under the Bill very
serious injustice will be done to Scottish housing conditions and, so far from solving the housing problem, very great danger may be created in the near future by a reproduction of the slums or the difficult conditions of the past. What are the broad facts of the Scottish housing situation? I understand that during recent times all kinds of estimates have been taken as to the cost of a house. One figure widely quoted is £425. To that problem a great deal of Scottish investigation has been directed during recent months, and competent authorities in Scotland have put the difference in the cost of the houses as compared with England as high as £122. By other authorities, apparently, the difference in the cost has been put very much lower. A few days ago, in a memorandum which was submitted from the West of Scotland, it was held that an intermediate figure of about £78 or £80 might be taken as the necessary extra cost of erecting a house in Scotland, if it was to withstand Scottish climatic and other conditions.
May I tender the Committee an explanation of the points on which the extra charge is made up? Scottish architects and other Scottish authorities take the view that the plumbing work must be heavier and more substantial in Scotland than in England. They also point to the fact that certain felting and other additional roofing work is required. Then there is separate and heavier treatment of the window work, for reasons well known to everyone who has lived in Scotland or visited it. There are also certain extra charges in the foundations, because of the usually undulating character of very large numbers of Scottish sites. All these are extra charges compared with a great deal of the property in England, and it is our case that, unless we have a larger allowance than the £6 subsidy suggested in this Bill, there will be erected in Scotland only an inferior type of house, which will soon deteriorate and involve the local authorities in heavy outlay for repairs at an early date, and will in no way fulfil the purposes of this housing scheme.
Something has been said by my hon. and gallant Friend as to representative opinion in Scotland on this point. The precise position is that this so-called Manchester agreement was arrived at by
a certain restricted number of the larger authorities in England. So far as I can find out, only one large Scottish municipality appears to have been represented, and only on a most temporary basis, namely, the municipality of Glasgow. Having obtained certain information about the proposals which were to be made, the Glasgow representative, with commendable discretion, withdrew and took no further part in the proceedings. So, apparently, there is to be foisted on Scotland a scheme to which no representative Scottish body or separate persons have given any support whatever. That, I think, is a very serious state of affairs. At present there is not one large organisation, representative of the experts or local authorities in Scotland, who would say for a moment that this £6 subsidy is adequate. The Scottish Board of Health itself appears to have taken that view. What is the requisite subsidy which the Scottish people put forward? They say, at the very least, it should be £10 per annum. Others have put it as high as £12, but in any case, it must be more than the £6 embodied in this Financial Resolution. We recognise that if the Financial Resolution be passed and the Bill goes upstairs to Committee on that basis, all further effective fight on our part is at an end.
These Scottish authorities suggest £10, or something more than £6. They do so for the reasons I have described, and for another reason, to which insufficient attention has been devoted in the past discussion on this problem. Taken over the period which will be necessary for the erection of these houses, this allowance does not amount to £6 per annum, which is a very important point. In point of fact, it may not be more than £4, it may be some sum less than £6, because the terms of the Resolution say—
Not exceeding a sum equal to six pounds.
The only choice before the local authorities is this: They have either to accept this Resolution and the £6 subsidy under this Bill, and provide a type of house which is really required for Scotland, and carry the extra burden of building; or lower the standard of the housing accommodation. That is the real choice before the Scottish local authorities and the
Scottish people. [...]aving regard to the enormous weight of local rates in Scotland, and to the fact that this Bill, in application, will entail very largely increased local charges; and looking to the evidence which was submitted by the Dunedin Committee, which reported on local rating in Scotland, and indicated that local rates there could carry no higher burden—I very much fear some of the local authorities in Scotland will be compelled to fall back upon standards of houses which might stand the climate south of the Tweed—I do not know—but, in any case, are totally unsuitable for Scottish conditions. I plead most earnestly, before we do a grave wrong and injustice to the whole housing programme in Scotland, which would go right in the teeth of the evidence of the local authorities and their experts, and of the Report of the Royal Commission of 1909, that we should reconsider this matter. We should give Scotland separate treatment under this Resolution, in a separate Measure, and deal with the housing problem north of the Tweed in the way in which, undoubtedly, it ought to be handled.

Mr. MILLAR: I only desire to intervene very briefly in support of the arguments so eloquently directed to the Committee by the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain W. Benn) and by the hon. Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham). The case for differential treatment for Scotland has not only been proved, but has been admitted by the hon. and gallant Gentleman who represents the Ministry of Health in Scotland. We are here, as Scottish Members, only insisting that the Government should carry out what they know and believe to be the desire of the people of Scotland. I do not propose to enter into details on this subject, but I should like to draw the attention of the Minister of Health to the fact that when he had a meeting with the local authorities in England, at which, I believe, there was present a representative from the City of Glasgow, that representative not only withdrew from the conference but, at the meeting on 23rd February, he said that such a subsidy—£6 per house—as was being proposed for England could not be accepted by any Scottish local authority. I understand he believed he had good reason then to suppose that a separate figure would be
adjusted for Scotland, and accordingly he withdrew from the meeting altogether. The case substantially for differentiation stands not only upon the cost of building, but upon the different system of rating in Scotland. I ask the Committee to consider the terms of the Memorandum with regard to the Financial Resolution which has been circulated by the Minister of Health, in which are indicated the special grounds on which a deficit is expected to arise in view of the expenses incurred by the local authorities in each district. Paragraph 3 of the Memorandum states:
The expenses to be incurred by local authorities in themselves providing houses will depend on several uncertain factors, namely, the cost of building during the period to the 1st October, 1925—
On the cost of building, we have got a direct admission that there is a substantial difference of cost involved in the case of housing in Scotland. Secondly, the next consideration is:
the rents which can be charged for the houses and the interest payable on capital during the period of 60 years for which building loans are sanctioned.
Let us examine for a moment the rents which can be charged for the houses. Everything depends upon what the local authority is going to get in the way of a rent for the house which it is erecting. Upon the amount which it receives the deficit which it will have to face will have to be assessed. Whereas, in England, for every £20 rent which is paid to the local authority, the local authority will be able to put the whole of that into its pocket, in Scotland the local authority will have to deduct for owners' rates £4 off every £20, namely, 20 per cent. off the actual rent which it receives. The question I want to put to my hon. and gallant Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health is, in making his calculation for Scotland, what allowance have the Scottish Office made for the difference between England and Scotland involved in a 20 per cent. reduction in respect of rates on the rent which they are receiving? It seems to me that is a point which will bring us up to a considerably larger subsidy than has been in view by a, number of hon. Members who have spoken. I do not think we, in Scotland, put the cost too high when we suggest a £12 subsidy. I am fortified in making that proposal here—I hope the hon. and gallant Gentle
man will not treat this suggestion in the same manner as he did the suggestion which was made during the last Debate, but will take it more seriously—when I inform him that this suggestion comes to me from one of the leading housing experts in Scotland, who believes that £12, at least, is necessary. This gentleman writes:
Our calculations show that a subsidy of £12 per annum for 20 years for a three-roomed house in a tenement is quite insufficient. The £12 per year might possibly suffice if it were carried on for the period of the building loan redemption fund, or even for a fixed period something less than that but it seems quite clear that 20 years at £12 is far short of what would be necessary.
I do not bring that forward as my own individual view, but as the view of one of the men best qualified to discuss this matter in Scotland, with whom I have no doubt my hon. and gallant Friend will also have to discuss the matter later on.
The result is simply going to be that in Scotland we shall not get the houses. It is cheese-paring policy; it is a foolish policy. I am perfectly certain I carry with me the views of the hon. Members who represent Scotland when I say that the question of housing is a national one. [An HON. MEMBER: "Home Rule for England."] Home Rule for England! Hear, hear! It is a national question. There are many English people who go to Scotland, and perhaps there are more Scottish people who come to England. When, however, we are dealing with housing, we are dealing with a question which affects the population as a whole; and the leading consideration is the necessity which has arisen, whether it be North of the Tweed or South of the Tweed, that we should deal with the situation having regard to the actual needs of the people, and the necessity for improving the physique of our race.
These are considerations of which I hope the Committee will take account. We are faced with a very serious situation indeed, in Scotland, and the whole of Scottish opinion is united on the subject. I do not think I ever remember a case in which we have had Scottish opinion, representing practically every district in Scotland, so absolutely united in making a case against the provisions of this Resolution and of the Bill. I also, from my experience in this House, have never yet come across a case in which the Scottish
Office, being united with the opinion in Scotland in demanding separate treatment; has allowed itself to be turned down by the Cabinet without making a more serious protest against such treatment. I suggest to my hon. and gallant Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary that it is not enough to make another brilliant speech, such as he made the other day. We want him to face the facts, and to face opinion in Scotland. I observe, over the week-end, he again visited the Conservative Club, in Edinburgh, and delivered a further speech there. The hon. and gallant Gentleman is wrong if he thinks Scottish opinion will accept the view which he put forward there. Speaking at the Conservative Club, on Friday, he said:
He was not content to split the Bill into two and waste the sunlight and the building weather which they enjoyed for so short a time, and to have a series of sterile debates merely for the sake of talking.
I can assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman—and I am speaking for my colleagues—that we are pressing the case for Scotland, not for the sake of talking, but in order to give effect to the views of those local authorities whose voice ought to be heard in the House. We are prepared to say to him that if his Bill were divided into two, and if it could go up to the Scottish Grand Committee, he could trust the Scottish Members not to talk for talking's sake, but to try to get a thoroughly good Bill and to obtain something for Scotland.

Captain ELLIOT: I do not want to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but what about the question of finance?

Mr. MILLAR: My answer is this. When the hon. and gallant Gentleman proposed the £7 subsidy surely he faced that question, and is in a position to realise that in regard to finance the needs of Scotland are entitled to special consideration. In a question that affects the whole nation, it is a mistake, financially, to prevent sufficient money being available to meet the needs of the worst-housed district in the United Kingdom. I put it to him that, on the question of finance, we make our claim without any suggestion that we are imposing our will upon the people of England, but because we believe that all the people of the United Kingdom should unite together in securing, at
least, better housing in the worst-housed districts, and that they are willing, along with us in Scotland, to do their share.

Mr. MACPHERSON: I intervene only for a few moments in support of the views expressed already by my colleagues from Scotland. English Members of one particular party had the opportunity of hearing this part of the Bill—the financial side—discussed upstairs, and I believe my Noble Friend the Secretary for Scotland was present there, also. So far as I know, however, no single hon. Member of either of the two parties on the Opposition side had that opportunity. Since then, we have had my hon. and gallant Friend the Under-Secretary for Health addressing the Conservative Club in Edinburgh, and he made a reference to the "sterile Debates" in this House. I am sorry that he should have gone to Edinburgh, the capital of the country, which he is supposed to represent in this House, and made a reference of that kind to the Debates in this House. All the Scottish Members in this House are very sincere in the attitude which they are adopting with regard to this Bill. They believe honestly that they are voicing the sentiments of the people of Scotland. My hon. and gallant Friend might have spared himself from making a reference of that kind.
Our case in Scotland is that the conditions in Scotland are entirely different. My hon. and gallant Friend at that Box has himself told us that it cost more to build this type of house in Scotland than in England, and, therefore, I cannot see why he should say now that Scotland has not got a claim for a higher subsidy than is given in England. My hon. and gallant Friend in the last Debate made a very interesting and excellent speech, but it did not deal with the facts as presented by every Scottish Member who spoke. It was not merely Scottish Members from one part or another part of Scotland, but every Scottish Member, whether representative of a rural or an urban constituency. They had all the same story, and they were backed up by all sections of public opinion in Scotland. I would ask my hon. and gallant Friend whether he would not yet make an endeavour to give us a separate Scottish Bill, because all of us, even his own colleagues on the other side
of the House, have pointed out that our conditions are different, and he himself has admitted that they are different, and even at this late hour I would ask him whether he cannot give us a separate Bill for separate discussion before a Scottish Grand Committee.

Mr. WILLIAM WATSON: I hope that this Amendment will go to a division, and that we shall get the support, not only of every Scottish Member, but of English Members as well. Conditions are entirely different in the two countries, and it will be well for this House if it gives fuller consideration to these differences. I listened with the greatest interest to the Debate on the Second Reading, and also to the Debate to-day, because I had the unique experience of being present at the annual conference of the Scottish Housing and Town Planning Conference in Glasgow, when this question was first discussed by the organised local authorities. At that Conference there was no division of opinion so far as the £6 subsidy was concerned. The Scottish local authorities were unanimous that the subsidy did not touch the burning question in Scotland.
I am interested in this question from another point of view. I am a member of a county council, and I have been a member of a housing and town planning committee, which has had to deal with the Addison scheme, and has built a number of houses under that scheme, and if this scheme were to be substituted for the scheme which we have been operating, not one house will be built by our local authority. So, while the Under-Secretary for Health delivered a very interesting speech at Edinburgh, and spoke about wasting the sunshine and summer weather when houses could be built, he might as well take time now to produce a satisfactory Bill for Scotland, because he will get time, through the fact that no houses will be built under this scheme, for considering some scheme other than that which we are considering here to-day.
I have asked our district engineer, who has had control over building schemes, to give me an idea of how houses under this scheme would actually work out, and I have been provided with the following figures. He assumes that a three-apartment house in our district in Scotland cannot be erected for less than £400, and
he assumes that we shall be able to borrow capital at 4½ per cent. Those are liberal assumptions, because we shall not be able to build for £400, and probably cannot get the money at 4½ per cent. We have started building houses under the last scheme which are costing from £410 to £450, and we shall not get them any cheaper under this scheme; but for the purpose of making out a definite statement as to what we can do, he is assuming that we can get the houses built at £400, and borrow the money at 4½ per cent.
It works out on a 30 years' loan in this way. We shall have to provide sinking fund and interest which will cost £24 11s. 2d. There will be feu duty at £8 per acre, which will be 16s. per house. Rates at 8s. in the £ will be £7 4s.; repairs at 15 per cent. of the rental £2 14s.; management at 5 per cent. of the rental, 18s.; insurance 8s.; empties and loss, etc. at 2½ per cent. 9s.; which makes a total of £37 0s. 2d. So far as our district is concerned, we shall not get any more than £18 for these three apartment houses, so that there will be a deficit of £19 which has got to be met in some way. The Government propose that we shall be content with a £6 subsidy. If we get the full £6, £13 will require to be found by the local ratepayers annually. That is a burden which I am sure the local ratepayers will not consent to shoulder.
I would appeal to those in charge of this Measure to consider the position as far as Scotland is concerned. I come from the burgh which has the shocking housing conditions which were stated to this House by the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley) when moving the rejection of this Measure. We require an enormous number of houses built in our burgh, and over the whole mining area in the West of Fife, and if we have to proceed under this scheme not one house will be built in that district for a considerable time to come. We have districts already overburdened. Not only is there a heavy education rate, but in Dunfermline district we have a road rate of over 4s. and in Kirkcaldy district a water rate of over 6s. in the £. If in addition we have to ask the local ratepayers to shoulder unlimited liability in connection with the provision of houses, not one house will be built in districts which require an enormous number of houses to be built. Therefore I join with all those who have spoken in appealing to
the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. and gallant Friend to reconsider the matter so far as Scotland is concerned. We who are members of local authorities are most anxious to do whatever we can to provide the houses which are so urgently required, but this scheme will not produce the houses. Therefore it will be far better to reconsider the position and give us a Scottish Measure which will receive the whole-hearted support of local authorities in Scotland.
I believe that, at the time of the Manchester Conference, the large local authorities considered that they might do better under this scheme than they did under the Addison scheme. The four-fifths of a penny brought in a considerable sum in Glasgow, something like £40,000, and the Glasgow local authority at the first glance at this Measure considered that they would gain more by a definite sum per house than by the four-fifths of a penny. But after it was more carefully considered the Glasgow local authorities, and other local authorities in Scotland, have come to the decision that in the long run we should be in a better position either with the old Addison scheme or with a subsidy of £10 per house, and they would prefer the old Addison scheme even to a subsidy of £10 per house. If this Measure is passed you will have the local authorities in Scotland refusing to operate it.

Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR: I rise, not to elaborate the points which have been put so admirably by my right hon. and hon. Friends, but to express astonishment at the attitude of the Under-Secretary for Health. He asked my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Fast Fife (Mr. D. Millar) what about finance, but when the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley) in his brilliant and forcible speech the other day made a great point about finance, he was told by the hon. Gentleman's colleague, the Attorney-General, that finance has nothing to do with it. It is because I disagree profoundly with that proposition that I suggest that this Amendment ought to commend itself to the Committee. We all know that it is a problem of finance in Scotland. There is no use trying to get the Scottish Minister and an English Minister to deal with the same Bill, because of the conditions
in the two countries. The view that it is a question of finance in Scotland was supported by Scottish Members in all parts of the House. The hon. Member for South Edinburgh (Sir S. Chapman) said "It is a question of finance." The hon. Member for Kelvin Grove (Mr. W. Hutchison) said:
If the Government itself in 1919, when prices went up against them, stopped the housing scheme, how much more readily will the local authorities which are finding prices going up against them stop their housing schemes when it means unlimited liability?
The effect of this Resolution will be to confine the Bill within such financial limits that it will be impossible for the Committee upstairs to amend it and make it applicable to Scotland. The learned Attorney-General had been answered in anticipation by the hon. Member for South Edinburgh and by the hon. Member for Kelvin Grove. When hon. Members opposite fall out, perhaps honest Scotsmen will come by their own. In this demand for special treatment of Scotland all Scottish Members unite, and all Scottish local authorities unite, or rather all Scottish Members with the exception of the hon. and gallant Member for South Lanark (Captain Elliot), who now sees these questions through official spectacles of a rosy tint.

Captain ELLIOT: I asked also for special treatment for Scotland.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: Then I have no doubt that the hon. and gallant Member will go into the Lobby and vote for the Amendment. It is true that in Edinburgh, on 21st March, he said:
The figures showed a justification—he was speaking as Under-Secretary for Health—for an increase of £1 per house over England.
After all, allowances must be made for the hon. and gallant Gentleman whose generous emotions of Scottish patriotism overcame him at a time when he had only just assumed his office, and before his judgment had been sobered by the responsibility of that office. The hon. Member for Kelvin Grove said:
I think the Measure is capable of a good deal of alteration and improvement in Committee.
But we cannot alter it in Committee unless the hon. Member for Kelvin Grove and other hon. Members opposite come into the Lobby with us and compel an alteration of the financial Resolution.

Mr. JAMES STEWART: I want to address myself particularly to the way in which this Financial Resolution fits in with the situation in Glasgow. As has been stated on various occasions, the Glasgow problem is of far greater magnitude than the problem in any other part of the country, and, so far as finance is concerned, it is of such a magnitude that there is little probability of our getting the houses in anything like the lifetime of those now in this House. I have worked out the figures in my own crude way as to the cost. Taking the cost of the houses at £500 each, it works out at £35,000,000, if the total number of houses to be provided is 70,000. Taking all the charges at 5 per cent., that means that we shall be saddled with a burden of £1,750,000 annually, to which the Government will contribute £420,000, leaving the local authority to face a burden of £1,330,000 annually. That contribution from the State continues for 20 years, but we shall be dealing with the houses for a period of something like 60 years so far as the buildings are concerned, and for 80 years so far as the land is concerned. Consequently, during the whole of that period we are to be burdened annually with something over £1,000,000.
What will be the effect on the local authority? What will be the effect on the conservative opinion within our cities? The result undoubtedly will be that everything that can be done will be done by an influential section of the community to prevent this burden being placed on their shoulders. They want the houses undoubtedly, and they recognise the need for houses, but if the burden has to fall on them to anything like this extent they will determine to prevent the houses from being built, and all the time the problem will be assuming greater and greater magnitude, so that instead of our getting ahead with our object we shall defeat it. In connection with the financial provisions, note what we have to do. We have to meet this problem before the end of 1925, with the possibility of it being continued until 1926, making it on every hand impossible for us to deal with it. You say that you are to give £6 per house. As a matter of fact that has been worked out very carefully, and it is shown that all that we are likely to get throughout the country is slightly over £3 per
house, and at the same time there is no chance of the rate for money falling to any great extent. If you take it at even 3½ per cent., you are leaving us with a burden that it is almost impossible for us to assume.
If you want us to get ahead with housing, if you wish to make the financial burden such that we will be able to bear it, undoubtedly you will abandon this Financial Resolution, and give us something, not perhaps quite on the lines of the Addison provisions, but something of the same nature, thereby giving an incentive to the localities to get ahead with the work. When it comes to leaving Glasgow out of account, and taking the great number of small industrial communities in our country, the rural parts, the fishing centres and the mining and steel districts, I submit that you will not get the houses built and that the present condition of affairs will continue. If the Minister of Health, the Under-Secretary for Scotland, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, and others who are interested, will recognise what is at stake, they will put their heads together and give us something better than this Resolution. £13 annual loss on each of these houses or £9 annual loss on each of these houses. Suppose that we take it at the minimum of £9. It will leave these little struggling communities with a burden that they will be unable to bear. Glasgow may be able to shoulder the burden to some extent, because one penny in the pound brings in £40,000, but £40,000 will not nearly meet the annual loss, and something nearer a rate of 1s. in the pound will be needed.
If you intend to give us a chance, an incentive to go ahead with our work, you must alter these financial provisions. If you do not alter them, the Bill is dead at its inception. The smaller local authorities will certainly not undertake it, because they cannot possibly face the loss that will be incurred, and in the great industrial communities, in Dundee, Edinburgh, Glasgow and Aberdeen, the problem is of such magnitude that you will there have the same causes operating, perhaps to a lesser extent, but undoubtedly the ultimate effect will be that no houses will be provided, and a condition of affairs, which is steadily growing worse, will continue. I appeal to the Government to give us some relaxation
of their proposals, so that we may undertake the work. The necessity is recognised; the need is clamant.

Sir PHILIP PILDITCH: I am not quite sure whether I am in order in speaking as a mere English Member. If such should be the case, I would like to point out to my hon. Friends who have spoken, that there is considerable diversity of conditions south of the Tweed. If the proposal is that a special Resolution should be sent to a Committee which deals exclusively with Scottish affairs, I would point out that for equally valid reasons special Committees might be set up to deal with the claims of all the different districts south of the Tweed. There is no line drawn across the community at the Tweed. I am not going to urge the Minister not to give the representatives from Scotland what they want. I tell him only, that if he does give them what they want, in return for some help towards the passing of this Measure rapidly through the House, he will find that my constituents in the south of England, who have conditions as to the cost of building, the number of houses required and their financial capacity, which differ from those of the great centres of the North—will also probably want a separate Committee. I would like to reply to the argument used by the last speaker who, I believe, is an authentic Scottish Member for a Scottish constituency. I do not quite understand the figures given by the hon. Member, but if they apply to Scotland alone I am, of course, ignorant on that point. The hon. Member seemed to indicate that the £6 per annum was really only worth £3. Was that on the ground of the difference as between 20 years and a longer period?

6.0 P.M.

Mr. J. STEWART: You only grant £6 for 20 years. We have got to spread that over 60 years for the houses and 80 years for the land, and it only works out at slightly over £3 for the period.

Sir P. PILDITCH: I am not at all sure that the hon. Member is right in his figures. I think if he goes into the matter a little more closely, he will find it works out at rather over £4. There is a difference in the value as between 20 years and 60 years, whether in Scotland or in England, but I do not think that is the way in which the problem will be
tackled by the local authorities. We shall find most of the local authorities capitalising the sum. They will use the present capital value of £6 a year for 20 years either by way of easing their own finances, or by way of a solatium to builders. Most of them will, I think, tackle the question in that way, but, of course, is is open to the hon. Member to argue that the 20-year period is not sufficiently long.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is now entering into the general question.

Sir P. PILDITCH: I am sorry if I have been led away by hon. Members opposite, but rather than embark upon generalities I will not pursue the argument further.

Dr. CHAPPLE: When the hon. and learned Member for East Fife (Mr. Millar), was addressing the Committee, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Scottish Board of Health intervened to ask the question, "What about finance?" and apparently thought that was the last word, and that there was nothing more to be said. I express the opinion that the hon. and gallant Member is thinking of this subject in terms of money when he should be thinking of it in terms of houses. We are not giving doles to the local authorities; we are giving houses to the people, and, if we offer to Scotland a sum which will not build houses in Scotland, we are not giving houses to Scotland. The Bill is not a Finance Bill in that sense at all. It is not a money grants Bill, but is a Bill for the grant of houses to people who are without houses. The Bill in effect says, "In order to get houses in England and Scotland, we will give you a certain amount of money." My point is, if that money builds houses in England but does not build houses in Scotland, then you are only mocking the people of Scotland. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary has admitted that the grant which would build a house in England would not build a house in Scotland. He stated that he had pleaded with his colleagues and with the Treasury to get a sum of money which would build houses in Scotland, but that they would not give it. In that case his duty is to resign. He has admitted that this money is no use in Scotland because you cannot get the houses built for it. Suppose Parliament were to say, "We will grant
meals to necessitous children," and then, suddenly, instead of giving the meals were to give the money with which to buy the meals. Suppose the money that would buy a meal in England only sufficed to buy half a meal in Scotland, then in that case we would not be carrying out the intention at all; we would not be giving meals but only a sum of money insufficient to fulfil the intention of the grant. That is a point worthy of the consideration of my hon. and gallant Friend, and I would again say to him that he must think in terms of houses and not in terms of a money grant.
May I urge what has already been so eloquently urged, that there should be a separate Bill for Scotland? I see no valid reason why that should not be done. Such a Bill could be considered upstairs concurrently with the English Measure. There are in the House sufficient Scotsmen; they are sufficiently capable, sufficiently determined, and sufficiently verbose to get that Bill through Committee as rapidly as the English Bill would go through Committee. There would be no loss of Parliamentary time, and all Scottish Members on both sides of the House are willing to serve upon a Committee to push through such a Bill. Someone hinted the other day that the Government were afraid that the Labour Members whom they would have to face upon a Scottish Grand Committee might be a source of danger or anxiety. Has Scotland to suffer because Glasgow has sent a few wild men down to Parliament? Is the system of using Scotsmen to get through Scottish Measures and to supply the needs of Scotland to go by the board because there are in the House a few Labour Members of whom hon. Gentlemen opposite are afraid? We on these benches are not afraid of them. [HON. MEMBERS: "Join up!"] We find they have been supporting with great courage and capacity Measures which the Liberal party have been supporting for years, and we are quite sure if this Measure goes up to the Scottish Grand Committee, upon which sit these capable Labour Members, instead of having any reason to be afraid of them, hon. Members opposite will be grateful to them for their services. I appeal to the Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Scottish Board of Health not to be resistent and
dour over this matter, but to yield, and neither he nor the House will have anything to regret.

Captain ELLIOT: I find myself rather saddened by the course which this Debate has taken. The speech of the hon. Member for Dumfries (Dr. Chapple), particularly, seems to bring home to us how deep is the difficulty which lies before us in this matter. When the right hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson) quoted a passage from a speech which I had recently delivered in Edinburgh it seemed to me that he did me rather less than justice in saying that I referred to Debates in this House as "sterile Debates." My object was to avoid waste of time in Debates which were not about to serve a useful purpose, but hon. Members in all parts of the House will realise that to-night is the night of the crucial Debate on this matter. Tonight is the night when the finance, which is the essence of the Bills, is to be discussed and when those arrangements are to be made upon which there is no going back once they are settled. The Financial Resolution can only be originated in a Committee of the whole House, and it is in a Committee of the whole House that we Scotsmen have to put our case and justify it by argument, as it is impossible to justify it by voting strength. What a lamentable case has been made out this afternoon? I tremble at the thought of the discussion which would await us in Scottish Grand Committee if we were to put forward a case based on the requests which have been made this afternoon. We cannot mince matters; in this question the claim that we should have differential treatment for Scotland against England is a claim which of its very nature and essence—

Dr. CHAPPLE: That is not the claim at all.

Captain ELLIOT: I cannot give way on that point. The claim which I am asked to put forward is a claim for differential treatment for Scotland as against England. The claim of the Scottish local authorities is a claim for differential treatment for Scotland as against England. The claim of the Scottish Members is a claim for differential treatment, for Scotland as against England, and it is necessary for us to justify that claim by argument in
this House, and not merely by saying that we wish to get that differential treatment.

Dr. CHAPPLE: Equitable treatment!

Captain ELLIOT: The hon. Member for Dumfries did, I admit, bring out one point when he said that the differential treatment we desired was differential treatment in finance and not in houses. He said this was not a Finance Bill but a Housing Bill. He said, quite rightly, that I should think more of houses than of money. That is a perfectly justifiable criticism for him to make, but when financial proposals are being orginated, when we are debating a Finance Resolution, how can any hon. Member claim that finance is not germane to the subject under discussion? The Mace is beneath the Table, the Chairman of Committee sits in the Chair, and we are in Committee of the Whole House to discuss a Financial Resolution, and does the hon. Member consider that it is ridiculous for the Minister of Health or the Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Scottish Board of Health to consider finance? This is the time when we must consider finance.

Dr. CHAPPLE: I am sorry if the hon. and gallant Member was not following me closely enough to correctly interpret me. I said the conditions were not equitable, if the amount of money granted to build houses in England would not build houses in Scotland. I never said we wanted differential or preferential treatment as against England; all I said was we wanted equitable treatment. We want sufficient money in Scotland to build houses in Scotland.

Captain ELLIOT: I am within the recollection of the Committee, and the claim put forward by the hon. Member for Dumfries is a claim for differential treatment in the matter of finance. He says that building houses in England costs less than in Scotland and that we should give a larger grant in Scotland.

Dr. CHAPPLE: You should give the houses in Scotland.

Captain ELLIOT: I beg of the hon. Member to consider that not merely would this case have to go before the Scottish Grand Committee, where it would meet with a unanimity so striking
as to give unalloyed satisfaction to the promoters of any such Measure, but I would subsequently have to justify it before the whole House. I return to the statement I made at the beginning—that in this matter we must reason most cogently and must bring forward the most powerful arguments in support of our contention. The claim put forward is a claim to strike Scotland out of the Financial Resolution and to introduce a subsequent Measure for Scotland. It is said, "Why not have a separate Bill for Scotland? Let us get away from the shackling influence of this great majority of English Members, who cramp our style and impede our progress when we attempt to bring forward reforms which all of us in Scotland desire." I put it to the senior Members of the House that we should require a Financial Resolution for that separate Bill, and that Financial Resolution would have to be discussed here on the Floor of the House in Committee. Yet that is the very situation of which hon. Members are complaining to-night. That deals conclusively with the technical part of the argument that a separate Scottish Bill would enable us to escape from the dilemma in which we find ourselves to-night. The finance of any such Measure has to be discussed on the Floor of the House, and we have got to make out our claim for any subsidy which we desire. What is the gist of the matter under discussion? It is that the subsidy which is desired for Scotland is not only insufficiently high, but that it is ludicrously inadequate. That is the claim which has been put forward for the difference, such as was brought out by the experts, not merely of the Scottish Board of Health, but agreed to by the experts of the larger and smaller local authorities, that the difference in the cost of erecting the same house in Scotland and the same house in England was a difference of £23 sterling. That is not what the dispute is about this afternoon.

Mr. J. STEWART: Is it not a fact that the amount that the Scottish local authorities claimed as the difference to erect a similar house in Scotland was £125, and is it not a fact that the Board of Health have brought the figure down to £20, and that the Scottish local authorities will not accept such a figure?

Captain ELLIOT: That is exactly where I join issue with the hon. Member. If such a discrepancy existed, undoubtedly it would be necessary for us to go again into the figures, to study the figures more carefully, for us to determine where this discrepancy had arisen, but there is no such discrepancy or conflict of opinion. To erect the same house in either country leads to a difference of £23 in the cost. The difference is that the Scottish authorities claim that it should be a superior house in Scotland to what it is in England; that is where the difference of £125 comes in. I have been in this question for a long time, and I have discussed it thoroughly with the local authorities and with the experts. I have discussed it in Edinburgh, in London, and in Glasgow, and at the end of these discussions we came to this, that the difference of the estimated deficit in Scotland as against England lay in the difference of the rent that would be received from the house—lay in the fact that a superior house was desired for Scotland as against England; but on the actual cost of producing the same article in Scotland and the same article in England, the difference was of the very small order to which I have just referred.

Dr. CHAPPLE: I am sorry to intervene, but the problem in Scotland is to give the occupant of the house the same comfort and protection from the climatic conditions as he gets in a similar house in England. It is not that he needs a superior house in any other way, but he wants the comfort and the protection and the resistance to weather that a similar house gives in England, and the climatic conditions in Scotland will not allow that at the same price.

Captain ELLIOT: I wish my hon. Friend would put that contention before the Scottish local authorities. I only warn him of this one thing: Let him have the door open when he does it. At all costs, I would avoid any scintilla of humour in dealing with this question, because nothing could be a more fatal attitude in which to approach this enormous problem, but when it is contended that the desire is to produce a house equally resistant to weather in Scotland as against England, the cost of such a house is £23 above what it is in England, according to my figures, and nothing in the nature of £125. Let me assure the hon. Gentleman that
that is what he will find in going into the figures. The claim is two-fold: First, the very important point that we should not in Scotland be satisfied with the house which is good enough for England—and there is a great deal of substance in that claim—but where the difference between myself and other hon. Members comes in is as to who is to pay for this difference. It is not a case of coming and scintillating on the Floor of this House, and making jokes on the subject, when I assure hon. Members from Scotland that there is the utmost difficulty in getting the Englishmen to live in a worse house than the people of Scotland and to pay the money for us to live in the better house. The last thing that I should desire is to approach this in a jocular spirit, but I assure hon. Members that it is a task which is not made easier by the contentions which have been brought forward this afternoon.
When I find the hon and learned Member for East Fife saying that I must attach due seriousness to the demand of the local authorities for £10 a house for 60 years, a lump sum of £600, or for £12 a house for 60 years, a lump sum of 2720, I ask the Committee as a whole, and the Scottish Members in particular, to realise that if we desire in Scotland a subsidy ten times that of the subsidy provided in England, we must justify it by arguments of an altogether different order from those which have been addressed to us so far.

Mr. MILLAR: The figure I mentioned was that given by the best housing expert in Edinburgh and supported on the difference in rates, with which the hon. and gallant Member has not yet dealt.

Captain ELLIOT: I am about to deal with that very point, but it is no argument to the English Members of the Committee to say that the opinion of the hon. and learned Member for East Fife is supported by an eminent housing expert in Edinburgh. I wish to emphasise and to reiterate this paint. It is very difficult for me to come forward to the English Treasury and press this claim when it is only supported by another Scotsman. [An HON. MEMBER: "Can no good come out of Edinburgh?"] Great good may come from Edinburgh, though I am glad to hear an hon. Member from the West of Scotland admit it. I ask the Committee to bear with me in this argument as regards Scotland, because if a separate
Bill were introduced, a discussion of this nature would take place on the Financial Resolution. I am asking hon. Members to realise that when we bring forward a claim for a subsidy, it is a claim which eventually has to be passed by a Committee of the Whole House. Let me now deal with the other point that the hon. and learned Member for East Fife raised, a point of great substance, and a point which undoubtedly closely concerns both the local authorities and the people who subsequently have to deal with it in this House, the problem of the rating question in Scotland as against that in England. The hon. and learned Member for East Fife pointed out that out of a £20 rent in England a local authority would get the whole of it, but that in Scotland out of a £20 rent there would be a deduction of £4 for rates; that is to say, that, in the whole, on his house the Englishman would pay £24, and that, in the whole, on his house the Scotsman would pay £20. But where does the justification lie in this for us to put forward a claim to the English Treasury that the rates in Scotland should be borne by a grant from the Exchequer?

Mr. D. M. COWAN: Why does the hon. and gallant Member refer to the English Treasury, and not to the British Treasury?

Captain ELLIOT: I beg the hon. Member's pardon. I began addressing the English Members, and I subsequently referred to the Treasury, which is, of course, a United Kingdom body, but the Financial Resolution has to be got through a Committee of the Whole House, and we have to make out our case and to remember that when a claim for a larger grant from Imperial funds is made, we must substantiate it to those who contribute what is the greater amount, though not the greater proportion, of those Imperial funds.

Mr. MACPHERSON: I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman misunderstood the statement of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Fife (Mr. Millar). What he said was that the occupying owner in Scotland had to pay £20 for rent, plus £4 for rates, while the Englishman had only to pay the £20.

Captain ELLIOT: Oh, no! This is one of the questions which I have gone into
very carefully with the officials of my Board. It is one of the great troubles in dealing with this question, and it is, as I have said, that whereas in England the total amount paid by the occupier for a house does not include rates, for which he has subsequently to meet a demand, and which places the total amount of the money he pays upon his house in the year, that amount is less by so much in Scotland, which produces, naturally, a greater deficit to be met by the local authorities. The question of the rating system does not arise immediately in England, but let us take the point of the difference in building costs. It cannot be seriously contended that building costs do not vary to a great extent in England itself. There is not a flat rate building cost in England. We, in Scotland, have several immediate problems, but I do not think we can claim, for instance, to have an extra sum for the undulating nature of our sites to anything like the same extent to which that could be claimed, say, in Wales, with its narrow, mountainous valleys, where the claim could undoubtedly be put forward with just as great cogency as, and perhaps more than, we could argue it in Scotland.

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: We would not like to do it in face of the Scotsmen.

Captain ELLIOT: My right hon. Friend the Minister of Health will correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that such a claim has indeed been urged by the Welsh Members, and that it was, as a matter of fact, turned down by the English Ministry in respect of the general argument for a flat rate throughout the country, to which argument I am now about to address myself. Let us consider what the case for a regional differentiation is. It is that costs vary between one part of the country and another, but if we once admit that principle and decide thereupon to carry out regional differentiation, it cannot stop with the national demand made by the Scottish Members. The London Members have a strong case for differentiation, the Welsh Members have a strong case, and the Members from Liverpool bring forward most unanswerable arguments about the cost of building in that city; and let us not suppose that those parts of the country which are being left out would not perhaps
equally be able to discover very powerful arguments why they, too, should receive a higher subsidy than is being proposed in this Bill. Such a proposal means nothing more or less than a reimposition of control from Whitehall, to be rid of which once and for all was one of the strongest desires of the local authorities. The complaint of delays by the Central Authority, the complaint of unsuitable material, the complaint of excessive fees for various officials—all this and more was brought forward with great strength by the local authorities.

Captain BENN: When the hon. and gallant Gentleman says, "brought forward by the local authorities," were any local authorities consulted as to the flat rate?

Captain ELLIOT: Of course they were. I am in possession of a powerful memorandum, written by one of the chief critics with regard to housing in Scotland—one of the best informed, best thinking minds in regard to this problem—who, months before any question was put forward of a scheme for a fixed State subsidy—

Captain BENN: Do I understand the hon. and gallant Gentleman to say that these authorities advocated a flat rate equally in England and Scotland?

Captain ELLIOT: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is an Englishman, and, therefore, perhaps, not fully acquainted with the national psychology.

Mr. MACPHERSON: Is it not a fact that, after the Minister of Health announced to this House that there would be a flat rate subsidy of £6 for England, the Secretary of Scotland went to Edinburgh and said he thought a proper subsidy was £7?

Captain ELLIOT: Both the Secretary for Scotland and myself, as it was our conviction, felt it was our duty as Scotsmen to urge in every possible way the claim of Scotland.

Captain BENN: Why not urge it now?

Captain ELLIOT: We have urged this matter with all the power at our command. We have urged a subsidy on no such Brobdignagian scale as was suggested by the local authorities in their subsequent memorandum on the subject.
The memorandum we put forward was for a moderate and, as we thought, justifiable addition of £23 Even that was not accepted.

Captain BENN: What did you do then?

Captain ELLIOT: We reasoned with our colleagues, and advanced arguments. We were not satisfied with reiterating—as the hon. and gallant Gentleman would have wished—in accents of varying pathos and jocularity a claim for larger sums of money. We tried to prove our case, and we say here and now that we brought out a great deal better case than has been brought out by hon. Members. I do not wish to delay the Committee indefinitely, but this is a Debate on which, not merely the Scottish case, but the regional case in general arises. There is a case, undoubtedly, for differential treatment throughout the country. There is also a case for a flat rate throughout the country. Arguments for these rival schemes have to be thoroughly canvassed and gone into, and, in the end, in spite of the disadvantages of a flat rate throughout the country, it has been decided—and there is a great deal to be said for the decision—to adopt the flat rate throughout the country.
Let us consider the situation that would arise if the flat-rate were departed from. In the first place, this whole Housing Bill would have to be withdrawn. I think my right hon. Friend will bear me out, that if any differential treatment be adopted for one part of the country, it will have to be adopted for other parts of the country. In that case, the Whitehall intervention would again arise, with all the delays, of which we became so heartily weary in the years through which we have just immediately passed. It has been suggested that a continuation of the Addison scheme is all that is wanted. The housing scheme proposed by the Royal Commission of 1917, of which such great play was made, was a housing scheme which proposed that one-third of the expense should be borne by the State and two-thirds by the rest of the community. Under the Addison scheme, £9 was to be borne by the State and £1 by the rest of the community. It was impossible that such a scheme should indefinitely continue, and it was never considered by its promoters that it should ever do so. We are faced with this very
serious problem. The scheme of a higher subsidy for Scotland, as I have tried to point out, constitutionally would have to be argued, not in the Scottish Grand Committee, but on the Floor of this House. The arguments which have been brought forward are arguments based first upon the fact that under the present system the Englishman pays more rent for his house than the Scotsman, and the answer to that is that it would be impossible to suggest that an Englishman living in a higher rented house should pay a higher contribution than the Scotsman, who lives in a lower rented house. As to the claim that there is a need in Scotland for a better house, and that a correspondingly greater contribution in money should be made, it would be found extraordinarily difficult to push home in this House, the argument that it should be a better house, that the plumbing should be of better quality, that there should be three coats of plaster all over the inside of the house, where an Englishman's house takes twos that the timber construction should be on a superior scale, that there should be larger superficial area of the floors—with that we all agree, but we find, as I have found in practice, that it is an impossible thing to get Englishmen also agreed to pay on that basis.
There remains the question of why Scotland should be included in this Bill at all. I admit that protests have been made. I admit that the local authorities in many parts of the country have voiced—as they were entitled, and, indeed, bound to voice—their objections to the scheme brought forward under this Bill. We in Scotland are in a somewhat different position from England in the fact that we still have a larger proportion of houses to build for which the State accepts liability. We have got a much larger proportion of our houses to complete under the Addison-Munro schemes, and we have also a larger number of houses to get under the slum clearance scheme. Some time or other we must make a push to reduce those slums, to cut out the festering sores which lie on the face of our country. By our own efforts it must be done. Englishmen are carrying their own burden, and we have no right to demand more than our fair share. We have no right to come to them and insist that they shall provide us with a better article or at a greater cost
than they are having themselves. Some time or other we must make a push. Under the provisions of this Bill, I believe, we have a chance of making a push now. Now is the time, when we have this large number of unemployed throughout the country, when, owing to the cessation of industrial building, our brickworks are more or less unemployed, when, owing to-the slackness in shipyard construction, we are able to get larger numbers of joiners and woodworkers. Now, I say, is the time to make an effort, not merely to keep pace with the increase of the population but to deal with what is the heritage of the past. I do appeal to hon. Members to do their utmost to get proposals put forward under this Bill and given a reasonable trial by the local authorities in the parts of the country from which they come. If they do that, I am certain they will find they can be worked—and worked successfully—and in that I would ask the Committee to agree to go forward on the basis of a flat-rate subsidy for the United Kingdom, realising all its difficulties, admitting all its evils, but considering that, on the whole, we have more to gain than to lose by going forward with that scheme at the present moment under present conditions.

Mr. MUIR: We are considering a Rent Bill for England and Scotland. In Scotland the rates are paid on the full rent, whereas in England—I do not know if the custom is universal, but it is a widespread custom, at any rate—the rates are not paid on the true rent, but on a percentage of rent ranging from one-half down to one-third. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I am speaking of cases I know. I said quite clearly I did not know if it were universal, but I certainly know of cases where it ranges from one-half to one-third. That is not the case in Scotland, and it makes a difference in the arguments of the hon. and gallant Gentleman.

Captain ELLIOT: I was dealing with the argument addressed by the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Millar), and I was criticising the contention which he brought forward.

Mr. FALCONER: Upon the Second Reading of the Housing Bill, I stated my views upon this question, and I do not intend to repeat them, but I do desire to direct the attention of the Committee
to what is the real question which, with all respect to the Under-Secretary, he has not really tackled. The question is whether this scheme in Scotland will get the houses for the people. The question whether Scotland is to get more or less in comparison with England is a subordinate question. What is the use of a scheme unless the local authorities will work it and houses will be built in Scotland? With them it is a pure question of business. What will be the amount of the loss which they will suffer if they carry out the large building schemes on the lines laid down by the Bill?
Perhaps hon. Members are not aware how closely the largo local authorities and the smaller ones consider problems before they enter upon obligations in connection with them. They count the cost first and last most carefully. They have had examples of heavy losses in connection with housing schemes, some formed by themselves, and others formed by the Government. They have to consider, first, what type of house is required, and what will it cost. They have also to consider what will they get for it. I am not sure whether rents are similar in Scotland to those in England, but they will have to consider what they will have to pay in respect of rates, and if the rating problem comes in they have to suffer reduction on the yield of the houses, on 20 per cent. of the rents. They have also to consider very carefully what is going to be the conditions in regard to these houses at the end of 20 years when the cost of repairs has increased, and the yield of the rental will probably be reduced. They have to make that calculation, and they say—and from what little experience I have had in connection with the housing business I agree—that they will be very unwilling to face the loss involved and to take the responsibility for their community providing for it. [An HON. MEMBER: "Capitalise the sum."] Capitalising it does not rid you of the problem. They will consider it, and see what it is going to cost the community—and they say—and some of us are inclined to agree with it and with the advice of the experts—that they are not justified in facing the loss which will be involved.
I should like to ask the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of Health for Scotland
to face the problem as to what is going to happen if these authorities adhere to the attitude they have taken up. What is going to happen to the Housing of Scotland Bill if they are not prepared to shoulder this burden? It is not at all a question of comparison between England and Scotland. It is a question whether you will get the houses built in Scotland so far as the authorities themselves are concerned. I venture to say that this is the honest and right way of looking at the question. If working under this Bill will not produce the houses in Scotland, the sooner the Scottish Clause is struck out of it the better, in order that some other way may be devised. I listened with great attention to the arguments addressed to the House on the question of a sparate Scottish Bill. I am quite unable to see any difficulty in doing as has been done over and over again, of having a separate Bill, and sending it to Scottish Grand Committee. That does not mean that a Grand Committee is to be set up in every part of Scotland. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not?"] The Scottish Grand Committee has been established for the very purpose of dealing with questions of this kind. It is the general rule and practice, and it is wise and prudent to put such schemes before the Scottish Members. It does not deprive the House of its power, because there is the Report stage and Third Reading.
Let me appeal to English Members who have had business experience to believe that these local authorities are sincere. The members are men who have devoted their lives very largely to questions of housing and finance in connection with it; and I ask you to believe—if you can—that they may be right in their judgment, and that we in this House, of less business experience, may be wrong! I appeal to hon. Members and say it will be a waste of time, and it will be a waste of money for you to put up houses not sufficient for the purpose. I again put the question to the Under-Secretary of Health for Scotland: Supposing these local authorities, with their sense of responsibility, adhere to the attitude they have adopted, and decline this offer, what then? The waste of a year or two probably in argument between the hon. and gallant Gentleman and the others—whether with jest or not it is for him to say—as to what they are going to do.
Let us at once get to close grips with these local authorities in Scotland. Let the hon. and gallant Gentleman meet the difficulties with them and go on with a scheme which will receive the general assent of Scottish Members. I do not believe that any body of Scottish Members will be otherwise than in deep earnest about making schemes suitable for Scottish conditions.

Sir HENRY CRAIK: It was not my intention to intervene in this debate, but one or two of the speeches which have been delivered by hon. Members, and notably the speech of the hon. Member who has just sat down, has made me, as a Scotsman, feel that the honour of my country is likely to be involved in this matter. The hon. Gentleman began his speech by saying that he was going to deal with the matter as one of pure business: but what is his appeal to English Members? If you do not grant this financial preference for which we ask, we shall strike work altogether and will not do anything.

Mr. FALCONER: May I—

Sir H. CRAIK: I do not propose to give way. I consider—

Mr. FALCONER: On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Chairman—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order, order."]

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Gentleman wish to put a point of Order to me?

Mr. FALCONER: Yes, I desire to rise for the purpose of correcting—[HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."]

Sir H. CRAIK: That is not a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Chairman.

Dr. CHAPPLE: On a point of Order. When an hon. Member desires to correct a speaker who appears to be misinterpreting him, is it not usual for the Member in possession to give way? [An HON. MEMBER: "There was no misstatement."]

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It is usual, if an hon. Member says he is being misinterpreted, to appeal to the hon. Member speaking to give way; but that is not a point of Order!

Mr. PRINGLE: On that point of Order. May I call to your recollection that an 16th March last Mr. Speaker
ruled, under similar conditions, that it was according to the custom of the House for an hon. Member to give way—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is what I have just said.

Sir H. CRAIK: I am speaking in the presence of hon. Members who heard what was said. If I am saying what is not correct, the House is the best judge of it. The argument of the hon. Member was to the effect that he appealed to my hon. and gallant Friend on the Front Bench, and said that the main question was: how this scheme was going to get the houses! He went on to say, if you do not give us preferential treatment, it has been declared by the local authorities of Scotland that they have the right to say: "We shall not proceed under your Bill at all." Did the hon. Member not use those words?

Mr. FALCONER: I did not say, "How will you get them?" I said: "You will not get houses under this scheme." I expressly disclaimed any desire for preferential treatment, and said that was a subordinate and secondary question. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"]

Sir H. CRAIK: Yes, that the local authorities would not proceed because they had not enough money, and in order to give them that money you must give them preferential pecuniary treatment! Now, it is all very well for hon. Members who profess profound Caledonian patriotism like my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Leigh Burghs to pose as the protagonists for Scotland. But there is such a thing as standing up for Scotland on wrong grounds, and in the exaggeration of the claims of Scotland to make Scotland ridiculous in the eyes of others. I yield to no one in the strength of my adherence all my life to the best Scottish traditions, but there is such a thing as the Act of Union. We, in Scotland, like the people in England, are governed under that Act. I know quite well that some hon. Members opposite think they are pressing a specious claim when on every occasion they push forward the claim for Scottish independence of this Parliament. Over and over in relation to this I have heard hon. Members from Scotland say there was no other opinion; but I certainly believe that I am voicing the opinions of far the
strongest and best part of Scotland when I put forward the contrary view. I am quite prepared to answer to my constituents when I say that any proposals for separate legislative action in England, and in Scotland, will have my constant and unfettered opposition. However, what I was thinking most about when I got up was the observations of the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. D. Millar), which was to the effect that Scotland must have some pecuniary advantage over her neighbour. I am perfectly certain that hon. Members, if they really wish to be proud of their country, would not use that as an argument, would, indeed, disdain to use such an argument on the part of Scotland in the British House of Commons. The hon. Member opposite taunted my hon. and gallant Friend with driving as hard a bargain as he could get in these terms for Scotland. For 20 years as head of the Scottish Department I did everything I could to get the best terms for my country. [An HON. MEMBER: "Question."] But when the action was judicial, and had to be subject to the opinion of those who judged as between the two countries, I was compelled to accept a fair compromise between the two countries; and I am certain that as a proud and honourable country, Scotland will disdain to ask for special favour.

Sir G. COLLINS: I should like to ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman who represents the Scottish Department one question, and also to make a reference to what the right hon. Member for the Scottish Universities said about the Act of Union. I would ask whether, since the 1919 Housing Act was passed, Scotland has received her equivalent grant? That is a point, I think, not yet made in this Debate. Would the hon. and gallant Gentleman also tell me the amount paid towards local expenditure by way of subsidy under that Act of 1919?
7.0 P.M.
If I took down the figures correctly, the total sum from the national Exchequer paid to Scotland during those three years was £1,630,000. I put a question to the Minister of Health to find out how much had been paid to English local authorities during the same period. It may be that my question has not yet received his consideration, but an examination of the Estimates reveals that during the year 1920–21 the sum of
£3,000,000 from the national Exchequer passed to the local authorities, in 1921 a sum of £4,500,000 was actually spent, and in 1922–23 the Estimates allow a sum of £9,500,000; in other words, a total sum of £17,160,000 during the last three years to local authorities in England and Wales. On the basis suggested by the right hon. Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir H. Craik), the basis of the equivalent grant system, Scotland is entitled to receive eleven-eightieths of the sum paid to England. Applying that test of eleven-eightieths to the sum spent during the last three years or about to be spent by the local authorities of England, I find that Scotland is entitled to £2,360,000, whereas during those three years she has only actually received £1,630,000.

Captain ELLIOT: The point is simply that owing to the delay which we found in Scotland in building our houses the peak of our building activity has never been reached, and housing estimates, which have become stationary in England, are still rising in Scotland. We have an allocation of every house under the eleven-eightieths basis, and 550 houses in addition. The peak of our cost has not yet been reached, but the fact that we have not yet received as much money as they received in England simply means that our subsidy will go on for several years after the English subsidy comes to an end, and on that basis I think my hon. and gallant Friend may be assured that we shall not be the losers in the transaction. If there be any sign of such a loss, I should certainly bring the matter forward.

Sir G. COLLINS: The loss will not be revealed for some 60 years. My figures are evidently not disputed by the hon. and gallant Gentleman. During the last three years, therefore, Scotland has received some £750,000 less than she was entitled to under the equivalent grant system. During the whole afternoon hon. Members for the Government have argued that Scotland was not entitled to any preferential claim. Grant that argument, and on the arguments supplied by the Government and on the figures quoted by me, which the hon. and gallant Gentleman has not contradicted, Scotland during the last three years has received actually £750,000 less than that to which she was entitled.

Captain ELLIOT: I do not wish to misrepresent my hon. and gallant Friend, but is it his contention that we shall not receive this money?

Sir G. COLLINS: I am not concerned as to what will happen 60 years hence. My constituents in Scotland are concerned with what will happen to-morrow. To the sum of £750,000 Scotland is entitled. The hon. and gallant Gentleman cannot get away from that fact. He may disguise it as he may, but Scotland in the last three years has received £750,000 less than she is entitled to compared with the local authorities in England and Wales. That is our case. If that sum were forthcoming, as it should be forthcoming, the houses would be built in Scotland. The hon. and gallant Member, I think, misunderstood the arguments advanced on this side of the House. We pleaded for consultation.

The Government in this matter took action before they consulted the local authorities. We plead that they should first of all consult the local authorities in Scotland, and then, having heard their case, submit their proposals to the British House of Commons. I am convinced that if they would do that the British House of Commons, representative of all classes, having heard their case, would say, and say rightly, that the sum involved in this Bill is an inadequate amount and is not fair to all concerned.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 247; Noes, 123.

Division No. 116.]
AYES.
[7.8 p.m.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Crook, C. W. (East Ham, North)
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)


Alexander, E. E. (Loyton, East)
Crooke, J. S. (Derltend)
Herbert, S. (Scarborough)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Hewett, Sir J. P.


Apsley, Lord
Davidson Major-General Sir J. H.
Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank


Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Hiley, Sir Ernest


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W.
Dawson, Sir Philip
Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Dixon, C. H. (Rutland)
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Doyle, N. Grattan
Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy


Banks, Mitchell
Du Pre, Colonel William Baring
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard


Barlow, Rt. Hon. Sir Montague
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Hood, Sir Joseph


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Ednam, Viscount
Hopkins, John W. W.


Barnston, Major Harry
Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)


Becker, Harry
Ellis, R. G.
Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.)


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
England, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K.


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-
Entwistle, Major C. F.
Hudson, Capt. A.


Berry, Sir George
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Hughes, Collingwood


Betterton, Henry B.
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Hume, G. H.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Erskine-Bolst, Captain C.
Hurd, Percy A.


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.
Hurst, Lt.-Col. Gerald Berkeley


Blundell, F. N.
Falcon, Captain Michael
Hutchison, G. A. C. (Midlothian, N.)


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
Hutchison, W. (Kelvingrove)


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Fermor-Hesketh, Major T.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.


Brass, Captain W.
Flides, Henry
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Ford, Patrick Johnston
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert


Brown, Major D. C. (Hexham)
Forestier-Walker, L.
Jarrett, G. W. S.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)
Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
Jenkins, W. A. (Brecon and Radnor)


Buckingham, Sir H.
Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Jephcott, A. R.


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Jodrell, Sir Neville Paul


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Furness, G. J.
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)


Burn, Colonel Sir Charles Rosdew
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Joynson-Hicks, Sir William


Butcher, Sir John George
Ganzoni, Sir John
Kennedy, Captain M. S. Nigel


Butler, H. M. (Leeds, North)
Garland, C. S.
King, Captain Henry Douglas


Cadogan, Major Edward
Gates, Percy
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement


Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Gaunt, Rear-Admiral Sir Guy R.
Lamb, J. Q.


Cautley, Henry Strother
Goff, Sir R. Park
Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Colonel G. R.


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.
Lorden, John William


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Gwynne, Rupert S.
Lorimer, H. D.


Churchman, Sir Arthur
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)


Clarry, Reginald George
Halstead, Major D.
Lumley, L. R.


Clayton, G. C.
Hamilton, Sir George C. (Altrincham)
McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Maddocks, Henry


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Harrison, F. C.
Manville, Edward


Cope, Major William
Harvey, Major S. E.
Margesson, H. D. R.


Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.
Hawke, John Anthony
Martin, A. E. (Essex, Romford)


Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)
Hay, Major T. W. (Norfolk, South)
Mason, Lieut.-Col. C. K.


Cralk, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Mercer, Colonel H.


Croft, Lieut.-Colonel Henry Page
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden)


Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Molloy, Major L. G. S.
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid H.


Molson, Major John Elsdale
Roberts, Rt. Hon. Sir S. (Ecclesall)
Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)


Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.
Robertson-Despencer, Major (Isl'gt'n W)
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Morrison, Hugh (Wilts, Salisbury)
Rogerson, Capt. J. E.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)
Roundell, Colonel R. F.
Thorpe, Captain John Henry


Nall, Major Joseph
Ruggles-Brise, Major E.
Titchfield, Marquess of


Nesbitt, Robert C.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)
Russell-Wells, Sir Sydney
Tubbs, S. W.


Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Turton, Edmund Russborough


Newson, Sir Percy Wilson
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A.
Wallace, Captain E.


Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)
Sanderson, Sir Frank B.
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)
Sandan, Lord
Watson, Capt. J. (Stockton-on-Tees)


Nield, Sir Herbert
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Watts, Dr. T. (Man., Withington)


Paget, T. G.
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
Wells, S. R.


Parker, Owen (Kettering)
Shepperson, E. W.
Weston, Colonel John Wakefield


Pennefather, De Fonblanque
Shipwright, Captain D.
White, Lt.-Col. G. D. (Southport)


Penny, Frederick George
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)
Whitla, Sir William


Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Singleton, J. E.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Skelton, A. N.
Wise, Frederick


Peto, Basil E.
Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)
Wolmer, Viscount


Pilditch, Sir Philip
Smith, Sir Harold (Wavertree)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray
Snowden, Philip
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Wood, Maj. Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.
Somerville, Daniel (Barrow-in-Furness)
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Price, E. G.
Sparkes, H. W.
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)
Spender-Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H.
Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward


Reid, D. D. (County Down)
Stanley, Lord
Yerburgh, R. D. T.


Remer, J. R.
Steel, Major S. Strang



Remnant, Sir James
Stewart, Gershom (Wirral)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Rentoul, G. S.
Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Colonel


Reynolds, W. G. W.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-
Gibbs.


NOES.


Adams, D.
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
O'Grady, Captain James


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Harbord, Arthur
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry
Harris, Percy A.
Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hay, Captain J. P. (Cathcart)
Phillipps, Vivian


Barnes, A.
Hemmerde, E. G.
Ponsonby, Arthur


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar (Banff)
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (N'castle, E.)
Pringle, W. M. R.


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Roberts, C. H. (Derby)


Bennett, A. J. (Mansfield)
Hillary, A. E.
Robinson, W. C. (York, Elland)


Bonwick, A.
Hodge, Rt. Hon. John
Royce, William Stapleton


Bowdler, W. A.
Hogge, James Myles
Saklatvala, S.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Irving, Dan
Salter, Dr. A.


Briant, Frank
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Scrymgeour, E.


Broad, F. A.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Sexton, James


Brotherton, J.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merloneth)
Shakespeare, G. H.


Buchanan, G.
Jones, R. T. (Carnarvon)
Shaw, Thomas (Preston)


Burgess, S.
Jowett, F. W. (Bradford, East)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Buxton, Charles (Accrington)
Jowitt, W. A. (The Hartlepools)
Simpson, J. Hope


Cairns, John
Kenyon, Barnet
Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)


Cape, Thomas
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Chapple, W. A.
Lansbury, George
Strauss, Edward Anthony


Clarke, Sir E. C.
Leach, W.
Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Lee, F.
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Lees-Smith, H. B. (Keighley)
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Linfield, F. C.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Darbishire, C. W.
Lowth, T.
Thornton, M.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lyle-Samuel, Alexander
Trevelyan C. P.


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
MacDonald, J. R. (Aberavon)
Watson, W. M. (Dunlermline)


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
M'Entee, V. L.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Duncan, C.
McLaren, Andrew
Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.


Ede, James Chuter
Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.
Weir, L. M.


Falconer, J.
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Wheatley, J.


George, Major G. L. (Pembroke)
March, S.
White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)


Gosling, Harry
Marshall, Sir Arthur H.
White, H. G. (Birkenhead, E.)


Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, E.)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Gray, Frank (Oxford)
Millar, J. D.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Greenall, T.
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz
Wintringham, Margaret


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Morel, E. D.
Wright, W.


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Morris, Harold
Young, Rt. Hon. E. H. (Norwich)


Grigg, Sir Edward
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)



Groves, T.
Muir, John W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Guthrie, Thomas Maule
Murray, Hon. A. C. (Aberdeen)
Major Mackenzie Wood and


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Newbold, J. T. W.
Sir A. Sinclair.

Question put accordingly, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 130; Noes,247.

Division No. 117.]
AYES.
[7.17 p.m.


Adams, D.
Guthrie, Thomas Mauie
Nichol, Robert


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
O'Grady, Captain James


Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Harbord, Arthur
Phillipps, Vivian


Barnes, A.
Harris, Percy A.
Ponsonby, Arthur


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar (Banff)
Hay, Captain J. P. (Cathcart)
Pringle, W. M. R.


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Hemmerde, E. G.
Robinson, W. C. (York, Elland)


Bennett, A. J. (Mansfield)
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (N'castle, E.)
Royce, William Stapleton


Bonwick, A.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Saklatvala, S.


Bowdler, W. A.
Hillary, A. E.
Salter, Dr. A.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hinds, John
Scrymgeour, E.


Briant, Frank
Hodge, Rt. Hon. John
Sexton, James


Broad, F. A.
Hogge, James Myles
Shakespeare, G. H.


Brotherton, J.
Hutchison, W. (Kelvingrove)
Shaw, Thomas (Preston)


Buchanan, G.
Irving, Dan
Shinwell, Emanuel


Burgess, S.
Jarrett, G. W. S.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Butler, J. R. M. (Cambridge Univ.)
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Simpson, J. Hope


Buxton, Charles (Accrington)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Snowden, Philip


Cairns, John
Jowett, F. W. (Bradford, East)
Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.


Cape, Thomas
Jowitt, W. A. (The Hartlepools)
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Chapple, W. A.
Kenyon, Barnet
Strauss, Edward Anthony


Charleton, H. C.
Lansbury, George
Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)


Clarke, Sir E. C.
Leach, W.
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Lee, F.
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Lees-Smith, H. B. (Keighley)
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
(Linfield, F. C.
Thornton, M.


Darbishire, C. W.
Lowth, T.
Trevelyan, C. P.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lyle-Samuel, Alexander
Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
MacDonald, J. R. (Aberavon)
Watson, Capt. J. (Stockton-on-Tees)


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
M'Entee, V. L.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Duncan, C.
McLaren, Andrew
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Ede, James Chuter
Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.
Weir, L. M.


England, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Wheatley, J.


Falconer, J.
March, S.
White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)


Fildes, Henry
Marshall, Sir Arthur H.
White, H. G. (Birkenhead, E.)


George, Major G. L. (Pembroke)
Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, E.)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Gosling, Harry
Millar, J. D.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz
Wintringham, Margaret


Gray, Frank (Oxford)
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Wright, W.


Greenall, T.
Morel, E. D.
Young, Rt. Hon. E. H. (Norwich)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Morris, Harold



Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Grigg, Sir Edward
Muir, John W.
Major Mackenzie Wood and


Groves, T.
Murray, Hon. A. C. (Aberdeen)
Sir A. Sinclair.


Guest, Hon. C. H. (Bristol, N.)
Newbold, J. T. W.





NOES.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynta
Cadogan, Major Edward
Erskine-Bolst, Captain C.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton, East)
Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Cautley, Henry Strother
Falcon, Captain Michael


Apsley, Lord
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray


Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Fermor-Hesketh, Major T.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W.
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Ford, Patrick Johnston


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Forestier-Walker, L.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Churchman, Sir Arthur
Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot


Banks, Mitchell
Clarry, Reginald George
Fraser, Major Sir Keith


Barlow, Rt. Hon. Sir Montague
Clayton, G. C.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Furness, G. J.


Barnston, Major Harry
Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Galbraith, J. F. W.


Becker, Harry
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Ganzoni, Sir John


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Cope, Major William
Garland, C. S.


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.
Gates, Percy


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-
Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)
Gaunt, Rear-Admiral Sir Guy R.


Berry, Sir George
Cralk, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Goff, Sir R. Park


Betterton, Henry B.
Croft, Lieut.-Colonel Henry Page
Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Crook, C. W. (East Ham, North)
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Crooke, J. S. (Deritend)
Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.


Blundell, F. N.
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Gwynne, Rupert S.


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)
Halstead, Major D.


Brass, Captain W.
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Hamilton, Sir George C. (Altrincham)


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Dawson, Sir Philip
Hannon Patrick Joseph Henry


Brittain, Sir Harry
Dixon, C. H. (Rutland)
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)


Brown, Major D. C. (Hexham)
Doyle, N. Grattan
Harney, E. A.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)
Du Pre, Colonel William Baring
Harrison, F. C.


Buckingham, Sir H.
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Harvey, Major S. E.


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Ednam, Viscount
Hawke, John Anthony


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Hay, Major T. W. (Norfolk, South)


Burn, Colonel Sir Charles Rosdew
Ellis, R. G.
Henn, Sir Sydney H.


Butcher, Sir John George
Entwistle, Major C. F.
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.


Butler, H. M. (Leeds, North)
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)




Herbert, S. (Scarborough)
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Shepperson, E. W.


Hewett, Sir J. P.
Molloy, Major L. G. S.
Shipwright, Captain D.


Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank
Molson, Major John Elsdale
Simms, Or. John M. (Co. Down)


Hiley, Sir Ernest
Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.
Singleton, J. E.


Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G.
Morden, Col. W. Grant
Skelton, A. N.


Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Morrison, Hugh (Wilts, Salisbury)
Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)


Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy
Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)
Smith, Sir Harold (Wavertree)


Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Nall, Major Joseph
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Hood, Sir Joseph
Nesbitt, Robert C.
Somerville, Daniel (Barrow-in-Furness)


Hopkins, John W. W.
Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)
Sparkes, H. W.


Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)


Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.)
Newson, Sir Percy Wilson
Spender-Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H.


Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Stanley, Lord


Hudson, Capt. A.
Nicholson, Bg.-Gen. J. (Westminster)
Steel, Major S. Strang


Hughes, Collingwood
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)
Stewart, Gershom (Wirral)


Hume, G. H.
Nield, Sir Herbert
Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H.


Hurd, Percy A.
Paget, T. G.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Hurst, Lt.-Col. Gerald Berkeley
Parker, Owen (Kettering)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Hutchison, G. A. C. (Midlothian, N.)
Pennefathcr, De Fonblanque
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid H.


Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Penny, Frederick George
Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)


Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Jenkins, W. A. (Brecon and Radnor)
Peto, Basil E.
Thorpe, Captain John Henry


Jephcott, A. R.
Pilditch, Sir Philip
Titchfield, Marquess of


Jodrell, Sir Neville Paul
Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Tubbs, S. W.


Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.
Turton, Edmund Russborough


Jones, R. T. (Carnarvon)
Price, E. G.
Vaughan-Morgan. Col. K. P.


Joynson-Hicks, Sir William
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)
Wallace, Captain E.


Kennedy, Captain M. S. Nigel
Reid, D. D. (County Down)
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


King, Captain Henry Douglas
Remer, J. R.
Watts, Dr. T. (Man., Withington)


Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Remnant, Sir James
Wells, S. R.


Lamb, J. Q.
Reynolds, W. G. W.
Weston, Colonel John Wakefield


Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Rhodes, Lieut.-Col. J. P.
White, Lt.-Col. G. D. (Southport)


Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Colonel G. R.
Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)
Whitla, Sir William


Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. Sir S. (Ecclesall)
Wise, Frederick


Lorden, John William
Robertson-Dospencer, Major (Isl'gt'n W.)
Wolmer, Viscount


Lorimer, H. D.
Rogerson, Capt. J. E.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)
Roundell, Colonel R. F.
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Lumley, L. R.
Ruggles-Brise, Major E.
Wood, Maj. Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Maddocks, Henry
Russell-Wells, Sir Sydney
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward


Manville, Edward
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Yerburgh, R. D. T.


Margesson, H. D. R.
Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A.



Martin, A. E. (Essex, Romford)
Sanderson, Sir Frank B.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Mason, Lieut.-Col. C. K.
Sandon, Lord
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Colonel


Mercer, Colonel H.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Gibbs.


Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden)
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The next Amendment—to insert after the word "payment" the words
to local authorities in England and Wales with a population exceeding two hundred and fifty thousand,
standing in the name of the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair)—will be in order, if he leave out the words "In England and Wales," because those words raise the same subject which the Committee has just disposed of.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: I beg to move, after the word "payment," to insert the words
to local authorities with a population exceeding two hundred and fifty thousand.
I know that on this matter a bargain has been entered into with certain local authorities, but the Government are not bound to impose this upon smaller authorities. In certain districts of
England, the Act, may be an excellent piece of legislation, but I can assure the Government that it will be a dead letter in Scotland as well as in many parts of England. Scottish Members have been pleading for separate treatment as betwen England and Scotland, and I hope I shall receive the support of hon. Members who advocated that principle in the case of this Amendment, because it will apply fairly to places like Manchester and places with a population of 250,000 and upwards.
I make no apology for referring to the case of the rural areas. One hon. Member stated that in the rural areas you get fresh air, but if nothing more be done for the rural areas for which I speak there will be nothing but fresh air there and no men to breathe it. It is not so much for hon. Members on the Treasury Bench to pronounce judgment on the arguments which have been respectfully
submitted to the Committee, because that judgment will be pronounced in due course by the people of Scotland, who will watch carefully to see if the Bill works. I do not see how the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Captain Elliot) can brush aside on the advise of his English officials the opinions of those large institutions in Scotland who have devoted themselves to a careful consideration of the Housing problem. Why do I say that the finance of this scheme is unworkable in a rural area? The hon. and gallant Member said that in point of fact Scotland very seldom had been separately treated. He said the only reason for the 1919 Act was the Report of the 1917 Commission. The 1917 Commission discovered that the position in Scotland was absolutely different. The Act embodying these remedies was the 1919 Act. A separate Act is required. He tells us about his fight of a few weeks ago. After all, was it only a sham fight? Was it merely carried on from Department to Department, with files being carried across from one office to another, and each Department trying to do the other down? Was that all the fight he put up? Was he speaking with his tongue in his cheek? If not I have never seen a more humble, vanquished opponent than the hon. and gallant Member. I have never heard of anyone who so humbly ate the leek, as our Welsh friends would say. He behaved like the "Times" newspaper would like the Germans to behave. He said, in effect, "I was all wrong, I am very penitent and now I am going to do my best to reason with the brethren, and to down my brother Scotsmen and to show how right the English Treasury was all along." That was his attitude.
Of course the conditions are different. For one thing, private enterprise is no use for erecting houses in Scotland. It does not function any longer. It is not a commercial proposition. No one would set about buying land and putting up houses like this in Caithness for profit. What is the good of talking about private enterprise in this connection? Hon. Members on the Labour Benches want the Addison scheme back. An hon. Member said that some of the arguments are weak, but I will quote facts. A standard house costs £750. I have the facts written down here. The
actual cost in Caithness of a Government house, I understand, is £780. Local authorities would have to borrow from the Public Works Loans Board at 61 per cent. The hon. and learned Member who talked about a local authority going on strike should be asked, "Is there any strike in refusing to build houses at a loss of £25 or £21 10s.?" It cannot be done. No local authority could possibly build houses on these terms. The hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley), in his forcible speech, referred to the ignorance of the Minister of Health. I would not follow him in that, but I do say that the Minister of Health does not know the conditions in Scotland. He can take it from those who know—from the local bodies—that this Bill will not work in Scotland and will remain a dead letter. The hon and gallant Gentleman said that we want a superior article. We do not want a superior article. All we want is an article that will house the people adequately. It is absurd to say that a house built in Caithness—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I would remind the hon. Member that the question of whether the Bill is to apply to Scotland was decided on the last Amendment, and that all we are concerned with now is the question of the size of the area to which the Bill is to apply.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: It is one Bill, and I am dealing with the constituency which I know best. I am dealing with the rural areas, and I am giving concrete illustrations of fact from the experience of my constituency. What we want and what everybody in England and Wales wants is adequate accommodation. We do not want any advantage over Englishmen or Welshmen. We want the problem to be treated on broad national lines. We claimed just now separate treatment for Scotland, but I am not claiming that any further. If you will stick to the present scheme, to your fiat-rate scheme, no housing will, in fact, be done in large areas of the country outside Scotland. The hon. and gallant Gentleman took great credit for the wider powers which are being granted to local bodies, but we want powers which are wider still. To take an instance from my own constituency, £50,000 has been provided in Caithness for houses for 35 to 40 families.
If that could have been spent under the control or on the advice, if you like, of the local authorities, in improving existing housing, in enlarging the houses for the crofters' or fishermen's growing families, it would have conferred a benefit not on 35 or 40 families, but on two or three hundred families. We want good, strong, weatherproof housing — much better houses than we have put up recently. If money were available to carry out these improvements, infinitely greater benefit would be conferred on a far larger number of families in the country.
There is another financial question, the application of Clause 10. I deal with the part of the rural areas I know best. This Clause purports to give power to local authorities to compel recalcitrant landlords to put houses in order. I can only describe the houses which a certain landlord put up in Caithness during recent years—wooden houses, with knots starting out of the wood, leaving holes in the outside covering of the houses, and inside the houses a little piece of felt and a little thin wood lining. They have put up these houses in exposed parts, open to the biting north-east winds and the hail and snow. The cattle are under the same roof. Such houses are now being built in Caithness. There are no drains around the houses, and a man and his wife told me that they could not sleep in their house because of the insects which came from the cattle. In one house they were flooded out. I will give the Committee the name of that landlord. It was the Board of Agriculture for which the hon. and gallant Gentleman is responsible in this House. This Clause, again, cannot apply to houses that are too small. It cannot apply to smallholders because the smallholders, in regard to their houses, have no landlords. They are made landholders, and therefore, if the county authority comes down on the landlord, you refer them to the tenant, and the tenant has not the means to put these houses in order. The hon. and gallant Member knows perfectly well that this Bill is not adequate far the needs of Scotland, and in the last resort he falls back on this argument, that if you try to adjust the Measure reasonably, over various districts in that country, so that houses can be built in all districts,
there will be delay. But how much better to have a little delay in those parts in which this Bill is quite incapable of doing good—how much better than an Act which is doomed to be stillborn and to have no effect whatever, and to confer no benefit on the people for whom it is supposed to provide.
There is no justification for any attempt to delude people in rural areas, including the people in Scotland. I have no wish to block the useful portions of the Bill, but I cannot vote for a Financial Resolution which will sterilize the Bill so far as the rural areas are concerned. On this matter, all those people who represent the interests of rural areas must stand together. Some Members opposite hope for improvement in Committee, but what is the use of hoping for that if you pass a Financial Resolution which limits the power of the Committee to amend the Bill? It will do nothing to check the flow of the population into the great cities, or to check the stream of emigration which is going on. I would venture to remind the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill that it is on these country-bred strains that the vigour and virility of the British race on land and sea depends.

Mr. CAUTLEY: I have a great deal of sympathy with what has been said in the speech to which we have just listened. I, on the other hand, rise to ask the right hon. Gentleman in charge of this Bill how we are to justify to our constituents a vote given which would provide houses for other parts of the country and none for ourselves. I have failed to detect in the very energetic speech of the hon. Member for Caithness any trace of the distinguishing trait of the Scot of which we have heard earlier in the Debate. He, by his Amendment, wishes to limit the advantages of the Bill to the great municipalities and yet, at the same time, leave his constituents liable to pay their share of the subsidies paid to them. I, on the other hand, find great difficulty in supporting a scheme which will compel the people who live in provincial districts to pay taxes towards houses for other districts and of which they can get no share. I listened very carefully to the speech on the Second Reading of this Bill made by the right hon. Gentleman himself, and it is true that in one or two observations which were made by him he
suggested that the scheme was not entirely a comprehensive scheme. If I can be assured by him that he will bring in some Measure to deal with the housing in poorer parts of our rural districts, I should be quite content. As it is, the Bill is as complete a block to the building of houses in the truly rural districts as if the Amendment now under discussion were carried. No houses can be built by rural district councils as the Bill stands. I do not wish to speak to the Committee at any length, or to mislead the Committee, but I would like to call the attention of the Minister to the fact that the Attorney-General in one sentence did deal with the rural question. I should like to ask whether the Minister really means what be says and on what figures he relies. The Attorney-General said:
Of course it was necessary to consider the financial aspect with regard to rural areas. We have had worked out for us very carefully what the cost will be and we have the figures, and they show that it could be possible with this scheme for the local authority in a rural area to erect a house and find just a little less by way of subsidy than the State has to find in order to make tire scheme a success, and the rent which is taken in order to arrive at that calculation is an average rent of 5s. 6d. per week."—[OFFICIAL. REPORT, 25th April, 1923; col. 169, Vol. 163.]
May I say, in regard to that, that these figures are to my mind absolutely unintelligible and impossible? I should not be exaggerating, I think, if I were to state that to build a house in a country district far removed from a central population costs rather more than it would—in fact, I might say considerably more—in a centre where building is somewhat easy and materials more accessible. If we take £425 for the cost of a rural cottage to-day including drainage and land, and the last-named is a negligible amount. I say without hesitation the Committee will agree that the figure is a passable one. The local authority would be the district council and they would have to borrow money and would have at least 5 per cent. to pay and that amounts to £21 5s. a year. They would have to borrow for 60 years. They would have to have a sinking fund, and that fund has been calculated for me at a little less than ½ per cent. I take a figure for this of £1 15c. 6d., and again I say it is a most passable figure. Then repairs, voids, collection and all outgoings amount to
25 per cent. on a net rental of 5s. a week or £3 5s. That costs a total of £26 5s. 6d., and, taking the rent at 5s. per week—on which I shall have something to say—that brings it to £13, or a net loss up to this point of £13 5s. 6d. a year. I venture to say that in these agricultural districts a rent of 5s. per week, and rates in addition is absolutely out of the question for farm workers who are receiving only 26s. a week wages. They cannot pay more than 3s. If they are to pay 5s. a week and rates, you must take the rates at 1s. a week. The house will be rated at at least £5, and rates at 8s. to 12s. in the £1, say at 10s,. makes 50s. a year or 1s. a week. The above calculation is at 5s. a week—this with rates is 6s. a week—and if you take the extreme rent. of 3s. that the farm worker can pay, there is a loss of the difference of 6s. and 3s., or 3s. a week. That is in round figures of £7 15s. a year which added to the £13 5s. 6d. makes £21 a year. In this Bill there is a subsidy of £6 a year for 20 years. The local authority have to borrow for 60 years. For this period the is really only equal to £4 and not £3 a year as stated by the previous speaker. Deducting £4 from £21, we have a loss of £17 a year on every house built. How is it possible for a rural local authority to build houses on these terms, and the necessity in some of our rural districts is as great as in the towns? I ask the Minister in charge, what encouragement is given to local authorities, to the farmers and to the farm workers? What advantages are they possibly going to get?

Sir J. SIMON: This question which is now before the Committee is a question that was mentioned more than once in the Debate on the Second Reading of the Bill. It is a question which, during the two days of that Debate, was pressed upon the Government as a question which not only interested the Members of this House who sit for rural areas, but interests all of us who want to see a national scheme for assisting housing in this country made what it should be. I therefore deny that it is a subject which only interests members for rural areas. My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General was given the task of winding up the Debate for the Government upon the Second Reading of the Bill, and in the course of his speech he made an observation to which I should like to call the attention of the Committee. He first said that
Lancashire had contributed valuable consent to the scheme. He then said Manchester, in particular—I am referring to Column 618 of the OFFICIAL. REPORT—not only gave its name to the scheme which we have embodied in this Bill, but the Manchester authorities had given assurances of their willingness to co-operate and help to make it a success. He said:
The point made against the Bill is that the local authorities will refuse to work it.
He added that
Local authorities,
—not, the Committee will observe, all local authorities—
Local authorities, including Manchester, have assured us of their intention to work the Bill and work it on the lines of the scheme and do their best to make it successful."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th April, 1923, col. 618, Vol. 163.]
I do not doubt that at all. We all know that the Minister responsible has been most careful and skilled in approaching some local authorities, and the assistance which he has got from great local authorities like Manchester is very valuable. The whole point of the criticism is this, that the situation which Manchester has had to deal with was quite different, from the point of finance, from the situation which the smaller rural authorities would have to deal with. As hon. Members pointed out in calculating whether or not a particular local authority could be expected to work this scheme, we have to remember the local authority calculates on some contribution towards the cost of it in the form of rent which the house will bear, and I do not think the figure I gave has been challenged, that a house which is let for 5s. in the country certainly may be expected to be let for 7s. 6d. in the great towns. That being the point, when the Attorney-General had reached that part of his speech, I ventured to interrupt and to say this:
The question which I asked was not about the great municipalities, but what was the assurance that the rural authorities, the authorities with the smaller rateable value, would be able to work it?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th April, 1923; col. 618, Vol. 163.]
Then the Attorney-General, following a device not unknown to lawyers, said that he was coming to that point. It was not his fault that he never reached it. He hardly calculated upon what followed in
the Debate. But it is necessary to say that the House was deeply concerned to know what the answer was which the Government had to this question, and really up to the present we have had no answer at all. It is obviously quite unjust, as well as most inefficient, that we should spend our time in debating and carrying through a Bill of this sort, which does not profess to deal with the whole problem if it is to work gross injustice and inequality as between one area and another. My hon. and gallant Friend who moved the Amendment has shown us fairly enough that his heart is in the Highlands. He spoke specially from the Scottish point of view, but I rather apprehend that Caithness does not contain any towns containing 250,000 people. Therefore, my hon. and gallant Friend's interest in the matter was entirely disinterested. But there is much more than a Scottish phase. It is a question whether the medicine the Government ask us to accept as a healing draught is going to do any good at all in quite half the areas. I have been told—I do not know whether it is right—that there was a time when even the great municipalities were asking for this £6, not for 20 years, but for a longer period, and that eventually they saw their way to agree that £6 for 20 years was enough.

Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: London has by no means agreed with that.

8.0 P.M.

Sir J. SIMON: That supports what I have been saying. If the scheme is one that fails as regards finance to satisfy the great municipalities it cannot provide adequate assistance for rural areas. The figures which the hon. and learned Gentleman just quoted are really worthy to be quoted in a slightly different form again. The Attorney-General speaking for the Government the other night was speaking with information or instructions that even in rural areas the figures which have been worked out showed that if the Government would bear the burden of £6 for 20 years the burden which would fall on the rural authorities would be something less than the other half. With the figures in my possession I am quite unable to see how that can be so. Let me take the case of a cottage which lets at even 5s. 6d. a week. If you may assume such a cottage, which may be a parlour cottage in the country—if you build a cottage that
in the country is going to secure a rent of 5s. 6d. a week, it will not be unfair to assume that it will cost £500 to build. If it costs £500 to build and if you work out the interest on the money and on the sinking fund in order to replace it, it would appear that the loss which has got to be borne either by the State or the rural authority will work out at £16 5s. 6d. for 60 years. It is not the case that the State is going to pay this £6 for 60 years. The State is going to pay the £6 for 20 years. If you put aside £2 to form a Sinking Fund the position is that while the State will be contributing £4 in 60 years the balance will fall on the rural areas. These figures are not such an encouragement to the rural areas as is at all likely to enable them to work a scheme of this kind. There is this broad distinction between the present scheme and some of the former schemes. Under the Addison scheme you sought to compel areas to build. You put upon them the duty of surveying their areas and drawing up their schemes, and you proceeded to use all your power to force them to build. This is a scheme which offers assistance to the local authorities. They may take it or leave it, and it is therefore vital to a scheme of this sort that such terms will be offered as are likely to result in the production of houses. These are matters which interest the Committee and the whole country, and I hope very much that the Minister may be able to say not indeed as the hon. Gentleman suggested that in some other way and at some future time he is to introduce another Bill, but that this Bill may be so modified—he was good enough to say that he leaves the door open for modification of it—that this Bill will be such as will really give satisfactory assistance in the solving of this problem.

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: I support the Amendment moved by the hon. and gallant Member for Caithness for the several reasons pointed out already. I was listening very intently to what the hon. Member for East Grinstead (Mr. Cautley) said, that he did not see why this Amendment had been moved in the way it had, but I am very glad he remained to bless some of the points which have been made. He also emphasised some of the defects in the present Housing Bill. As one representing an industrial district, where the need for
housing is very urgent—in the Rhondda Valley the need is for something like 5,000 houses—we shall be very interested to know if we are to get a reply from the Minister of Health to the point put by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) as to who are the local authorities, outside of the areas indicated in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health. He has named Manchester and one or two other authorities who are in favour of and are supporting the provisions in regard to the £6 with the term not to exceed 20 years. Conference after conference has been held all through Wales. Nearly all the local authorities have been represented there. We have had a very strong deputation as recently as last week pointing out that they have never been consulted at all. Let me point out that Cardiff, where an hon. Member who is a member of the Government lives, is building, not what I would call a superior house, but a house of very modest dimensions, and in their last contract they only secured the price at £430 per house, on level ground where the sites were convenient and where the haulage and other things were all favourable. In every case prices have gone up, at least in all the large industrial districts in South Wales that I know.
Like Scottish Members, we have had letters and conferences to emphasise the fact that the local authorities will not be able to build a single house in the big industrial centres of Wales under the provisions of this Bill. It will be absolutely a dead letter. I can say from my own experience that the few houses we have attempted to build in the Rhondda Valley have cost £680 per house, and the next will not be very much cheaper. That being so, the Committee will at once see that we can have no hope from this Bill. We have a large industrial population where the need is for 5,000 houses. There is nothing we can look forward to in this Bill that will case that situation as far as our people are concerned. There was a conference here last week, and there have been conferences in the great centres of South Wales calling upon us to emphasise to the Minister of Health how inadequate these provisions are and to appeal to him to do something that will help immediately to grapple with the situation. We are looking forward that something may be done, but so far as we can see at the
present moment, as far as the provisions of this Bill are concerned, we shall not be able to move one iota from where we stand at the present moment.

Mr. PRETYMAN: I should like to emphasise what was said by the hon. Member for East Grinstead (Mr. Cautley) in regard to the rural areas. There is a distinct conflict on the question of fact, and I think that ought to be cleared up on the Report stage. My hon. Friend gave clear and definite figures, which I followed very carefully. I am already familiar with them, and I should like, so far as my knowledge goes, to confirm these figures. The hon. Member also quoted a statement by the learned Attorney-General—which was, no doubt, given in quite good faith—as to the rural authority where the rent was 5s. 6d. That, I presume, means the total rent paid by the tenant, and then the rural authority would clear itself by paying a little less than the Government contribution of £6. My hon. Friend's figure was £17. There is a wide difference, indeed, between something less than £6 and £17. That is not accounted for by the difference in rent between the 3s. and the 5s. 6d. I hope the Minister of Health will examine these figures very carefully before the Report stage and be able to tell us which of these calculations is correct.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) used the expression that the same scheme cannot fit for urban and rural areas. That is always the trouble with a flat-rate. The moment you get into a question of a flat-rate your flat-rate is an average. Clearly that only suits those areas somewhere near the average position, while those which are away from the average, such as the rural districts, are not affected. There is so much tendency here to condemn the scheme because it, does not cover all the ground, but I do not think we, in the rural areas, should like to deprive the urban communities of a scheme which suited them because that particular scheme did not happen to suit us. I do not wish in the least to take up that attitude, nor to join in condemning this scheme entirely from the rural standpoint because it does not do what we want. On the other hand, I am bound to say that all the taxpayers in the rural
areas are going to contribute to this scheme, and I agree that in some way or other it should be, if possible, in connection with this Bill.
The housing problem is really as urgent in the rural districts as it is in the urban, but I should feel on very much stronger ground if I thought any of the critics could get up and propose a solution. It is easy to say, "Alter the Bill, and do something which will affect the rural districts, and the rural districts alone," but there is no definite rent in the rural districts. My hon. Friend the Member for East Grinstead spoke the absolute truth when he said that a labourer getting 26s. a week could not pay more than 3s. in rent, and that some of them could not pay 3s. in rent. There are some people who can pay more than that, and in that case the loss would be proportionately diminished. There you get a considerable variety in rents. We had a dispute just now as between England and Scotland. Everybody knows where England ends and Scotland begins. You have a clear boundary line there, but when you come to the question between the urban and rural districts the character of them varies enormously. You have so-called rural authorities which are almost entirely urban, and you have other districts which are purely rural, but very impoverished, and with very low rateable value.
You must either have one or the other. You must either have a flat-rate Bill, or you must go into every kind of refinement to get a Bill which will fit all the conditions of the different districts. It seems to me extraordinarily difficult, but I hope that between now and the Report stage of this Financial Resolution the right hon. Gentleman will give most careful consideration to this point. My right hon. Friend will remember that it is this Financial Resolution which fixes this point. Once we get it settled in this Resolution, and finally on the Report stage of the Resolution, that the contribution which can be given out of money provided by Parliament is to be limited to the figure mentioned in the Resolution, it will be out of order even to suggest on the Committee stage that anything beyond that can be given in any way. I understand that the Report stage of this Financial Resolution is to be taken next Wednesday, and if the matter cannot be
settled to-day, it must be settled on Wednesday. There is only one day intervening.
I earnestly appeal to the Minister of Health to give the most careful consideration to this question. It is quite true he did say, on the Second Reading, that he only regarded this as part of a larger scheme, and as making a beginning in doing something which would be of infinitely greater value and import to the country than this particular Bill alone. Even admitting that, it is bad from many points of view. It is bad from the Groverment's own point of view, because it is from the rural districts that they draw a very large proportion of their support. I admit the Government have done more than many Governments have for a long time to help the rural districts. I should feel very dissatisfied, however, and I think the rural districts would also feel very dissatisfied, if a Measure of this kind were passed to which they had to contribute, and if they felt it would be impossible, under the scheme as it stands, for the rural districts to get any houses built. I hope the Government will give their most close attention to this matter between now and Wednesday, and, without departing from the flat-rate system, will do something which will give the rural districts an interest in the Bill.

Mr. CHARLES ROBERTS: The spokesman for the rural interest on the other side of the Committee has, I think, admitted the case that has been urged against the present Bill, namely, that it is going to do nothing whatever for the exclusively rural and agricultural areas. I do not think he has been able to assist the Committee with any very striking constructive suggestions, and he really asks the Minister of Health to propose some. I do not think that is a very helpful attitude. I rise to ask the Minister if we may now have the details of the calculation arrived at by the right hon. and learned Attorney-General. I put a Question on the Paper to-day—it is a written Question—asking for the details of that calculation. No answer has reached me yet, but, as the Question was asked, the Minister probably has all the figures at his command. Therefore, it will be very desirable at this stage that those figures should be given.
I am sure, without any question of whether we represent rural or urban areas, anyone who knows what is happening in the country must regret the fact that this Bill looks as though it is going to do nothing whatever in the exclusively rural and agricultural districts. We all know what is happening there. Houses are not being built. There is, in many cases, gross overcrowding, and the difficulty of getting the building; on to anything like an economic basis is very great. You have a vicious circle. You have wages scandalously low, which take into account, to some extent, the fact that these rural cottages are let at uneconomic rents—2s. 6d., 1s. 6d., 1s. The system is assuredly a very bad one, but this Bill, quite clearly, it not going to do anything for that situation.
I entirely agree with the figures given by the hon. Member for East Grinstead (Mr. Cautley). I know a little about the circumstances of a rural area, in a totally different part of the country from that which the hon. Member represents, but his figures were singularly close to the figures that my experience confirms. He showed, quite conclusively, this loss which is going to bear upon these rural district authorities. Even if that calculation be wrong, and we do not yet know what the Government's calculation is, there are two points which make it quite clear that the rural areas are not going to get anything out of the Bill. In what rural or agricultural area are you going to get 5s. 6d. a week? For cottages let to week-enders you may, perhaps, get it; you may perhaps get it in some semi-urban areas. That is the first difficulty.
The second difficulty, which is quite insuperable, is this. So far as I know anything about these rural district councils they have not the faintest intention of undertaking any building of this kind if it is going to put an extra burden on the rates. I should like to know of any rural district council, in a truly rural area, which has assured the Minister that it is prepared to work this scheme. I could give him in return the names of some rural district councils which I know will not work the scheme if it means any addition to the rates, and as it clearly must do so I do not believe that rural district councils are going to work it at all. After all they have some justification. The Government comes
forward and says that the rural ratepayer is so impoverished that it is necessary to give a subsidy of from £3,000,000 to £4,000,000 to relieve the burden in the rural districts. In these circumstances can you expect these authorities to impose upon themselves the considerable extra burden which the building of these houses would produce?
I think that the Bill will be of some use to the towns and with that hope I voted for it, but, it is clear that it is going to do nothing or the rural districts, except tax them for the benefit of the towns. There is one matter which I have suggested for the consideration of the Minister of Health which though a small one is of importance. That is that in these specially rural districts where new houses are built they should be relieved from any assessments to Income Tax under Schedule A. It would not amount to a great addition but any addition which would help is worth having. If these houses are so urgently needed in rural areas it seems to me a foolish policy to tax them. Houses under £20 a year are exempt from inhabited house duty, and a house put up in a rural district with a limited rent—

The CHAIRMAN: I would remind the hon. Member that he is going outside the scope of the Resolution before the Committee.

Mr. ROBERTS: I feared that I was wandering somewhat beyond the scope of the subject under discussion, but I only intended to make a reference to that suggestion, but I think that the case is proved abundantly that while this Bill may do something for the towns it cannot do anything whatever for exclusively agricultural areas.

Sir K. WOOD: This Financial Resolution which we are now discussing is one of the most important matters in connection with the Bill, on which its success or failure will very largely depend. A very generous, and in the opinion of most people, a most extravagant offer, was made to the local authorities in connection with the old scheme. But I remember that when it was said to local authorities that everything would be paid for them in connection with housing except the proceeds of a penny rate, there wan considerable difficulty in getting local authorities to act even in such circumstances.
I recall one large authority which even when this most generous provision had been in operation for 12 months had not actually framed a scheme at all, and it was the subject of question and answer in the House as to whether that authority should not be declared a defaulter. If that was the position in connection with the old financial scheme, I fear very much as to the result of the present financial proposal.
I have here a document issued to-night by the London County Council, in which they take exception to the financial proposals of my right hon. Friend, and state as a matter of urgency and emergency for this House that even in London it would be impossible with the present proposals to do very much, and they give figures which have evidently been the subject of careful calculation showing what would be the loss so far as the local authorities are concerned even in London in connection with the present scheme. That is a matter of considerable importance, having regard to the position of London and its attitude towards this Bill. If that is the position of a great rich county like London, and if even they feel that they cannot work the scheme under the present financial proposals, what must be the position in rural areas and in large industrial centres of a low rateable value? That is of course a very difficult position, but it is difficult because we have adopted in a flat-rate system, and it must not be said that critics are merely critical if they take exception to the very financial proposal which has brought the difficulty about.
My right hon. Friend might, at any rate, consider between now and Wednesday whether he should not introduce some extra Clause in this Bill giving powers to local authorities to apply to him on proving certain matters, such as the rateable value and the rent which they are likely to get for houses, and that on considering the case he should be permitted by the Bill to increase the subsidy. It seems to me that this is the only practical way out of the difficulty, and that unless some practical step like that is taken very little housing is likely to be done in many parts of the country. No Member desires that this state of affairs should be brought about. This is the weakest part of my right hon. Friend's Bill and the part which needs
most attention from the House. When we have parted with this portion of the proposal, the power of the House to improve the Bill, though it may be considerable in certain directions, will be very much weakened by the Resolutions which we will shortly pass. In that spirit, which is not unduly critical of my right hon. Friend's proposal, for I know his difficulties, I venture to urge upon him that he should give his very careful consideration between now and next Wednesday to the suggestion which has been made.

Mr. ADAMS: I am glad to support the Amendment, because the more we can limit the operation of this Measure the better it is for the country. The financial proposals are of a distinctly retrograde character. No one can deny that the 1919 Act was an inspiration to municipalities. It set up a higher standard of housing. But this Measure indicates to them that it is not at all necessary, in this retrogade age, to house our people under model conditions. Therefore, I am glad to support an Amendment which would restrict the operation of the Measure to municipalities with a population of more than 250,000 people. The flat rate, in the nature of things, is bound to be inequitable. It cannot take cognisance of different conditions in the country. It has been proved to demonstration that rural and small industrial villages will be much more heavily burdened by the proposals of the Bill than the great municipalities. But even the great municipalities will hesitate before proceeding to face the colossal losses which are indicated in the Measure. Hon. Members opposite have asked us to submit some alternative proposition. The alternative proposition is that the municipalities throughout the country, and the Government, should halve all losses. Local authorities should be called upon to find only the proceeds of a penny rate, as in the previous Measure. If that were arranged it would undoubtedly be an inducement to local authorities to proceed. That there is likely to be difficulty in administering the Bill as it stands we learn from the latest edition of "The Builder," a journal which is by no means sympathetic to the point of view held on the Labour benches. This journal describes
the Measure as "a contemptible political compromise," and it says:
The figures are so inadequate that one can only express astonishment that the Minister of Health should have had the effrontery to produce it. It gives no guarantee that slums will not be erected.
The journal concludes its article by stating that any Government which can produce such a Measure is a public danger, no matter how much the Bill may be altered in its passage through the House. When such views are expressed by an organ which is frequently found supporting strongly the Conservative point of view, one can imagine what the views must be of journals of much more moderate opinion. We urge upon the Minister to adopt the suggestions which have been made from all parts of the House—that he should amend his views and give some hope to the local authorities and the country that the losses will be borne to a greater degree by the State. The Bill is founded upon an alleged compromise reached between the Ministry and some of the larger municipalities. As a member of a local authority, I deny the title of the Association of Municipal Corporations, which is largely a town clerks' association, to commit the municipalities which they are supposed to represent. You cannot commit a municipality until you have submitted the whole of the facts and data to it and taken a vote upon them. This compromise will bind no municipality in the Kingdom. It was concerned only with some larger authorities, and they must have been very easily satisfied. They are to receive but £6 per house, but that is really only £4 over the period of the loan. The period of the loan for building is 60 years, for land 80 years, for sewers 30 years, and for the roads 20 years. In the case of the £425 house at Manchester, which was the basis of the negotiations, 90 per cent. of the cost is represented by land and buildings, and only 10 per cent. by roads and sewers. So that 90 per cent. of the loan charges are payable over a period of 60 years and upwards.
The Government aid is for 20 years only, and at the end the local authority has to pay the whole of the loss. Municipalities with foresight will desire to safeguard themselves after the 20 years has expired, and therefore will invest at least £2 out of this £6
for the ensuing 20 years. Therefore, it is true to say that £4 for the whole period of the loan would be the maximum sum to be granted to local authorities. In industrial villages and in the rural areas, where the rentals are naturally much lower than those obtainable in the towns, and where the cost of building, certainly in Northumbrian villages, is greater than in great centres of population, the loss would certainly reach as much as £12 a year under the very best conditions. The great grievance I have is the endowment of so-called private enterprise. It is called "private enterprise" by a stretching of the English language. It cannot be private enterprise if the State subsidises it. What has this form of private enterprise achieved for the British people? It has been a terrible failure. There is no sphere of so-called private enterprise throughout our industrial history in which there has been a record of greater failure than in this of house building for the working classes. It has given us the congested town, the long rows of monotonous flats, and all those disabilities under which the workers—

Colonel NEWMAN: Is the matter now referred to in order?

The CHAIRMAN: The result of passing this Amendment would be to prevent any subsidies being given to private enterprise or to small municipal authorities. Therefore, I think the hon. Member is Quite in order.

Mr. ADAMS: The Bill makes abundant provision for the speculative builder and gives little encouragement to the municipalities. The speculative builder is encouraged to build flats, which we regard as monstrosities in the north of England. These increase the congestion of building unnecessarily. They deprive vast numbers of people in industrial areas of the possibility of enjoying domestic comfort in the best sense of the word.

The CHAIRMAN: Now the hon. Member has suddenly put himself out of order. There is no question before us as to the type of buildings, but whether the subsidy should be given to the larger local authorities or to private enterprise.

Mr. ADAMS: The measure of support which the Bill will give to the speculative
builder should be one of the reasons why hon. Members should vote against it. The municipality must first of all satisfy the Minister that there is a need. Backward local authorities will take no such steps. Independent of results, the municipalities should have been supported as against the speculative builder, because they possess the machinery for the erection of houses; they have the experience of the last Measure, and, after all, did erect 200,000 houses of a superior type. So far as we in the north are concerned, the rentals charged for self-contained houses—semi-detached villas with gardens in many cases—built by municipalities, were often lower than those charged by speculative builders for flats in the same localities. I am alluding to pre-War building. The municipalities have raised the standard of housing, and in the nature of things they are bound to be able to do so, because they can call to their assistance the city architect, the city engineer, town planning experts, and others. They have had, more than all, a distinct influence in reducing and stabilising rents. Workers' homes erected by speculators and private persons are liable to frequent rises of rent. With an improvement in the amenities of districts, rents rapidly rise, but rents for municipal property remain stationary, except as regards changes in rates. If the Government were prepared to deal with the building rings and the trusts; if they were to take the necessary legislative powers at the same time as they pass this Bill, and if they were to advise the country of their intention, then we need not fear that the erection of houses for the working classes would be any great financial burden on the country. The arrest of house building has been largely due to the rampant action of building rings and the trusts. If we were to take the necessary steps for dealing with them, there would be no fear—

The CHAIRMAN: That is a question of great importance, but I hardly see how it arises on the limited question of whether the subsidy should be confined to the larger municipalities or not.

Mr. ADAMS: I should like to conclude my remarks by saying, from my experience as chairman of the housing committee of the Corporation of Newcastle-on-Tyne, that there may be a considerable
amount of building in our great industrial areas; in the lesser industrial areas there will be little or none, in the rural areas none at all. I believe a great "fillip" will be given to private persons and speculative builders to create a lower type of house than that to which the working class are entitled. Had we not been so far removed from a General Election, the Minister of Health would not have dared to produce a Measure of this character. On the day when the Minister was appointed to his high office I was glad to congratulate him, and, as a fellow-worker in the municipal vineyard, I felt a glow of conscious pride that one who had done such able service had become lord of the vineyard. I received a great shock when this Measure was brought to light. I think it is St. Paul who advises us that with the froward we learn frowardness and with the gentle, gentleness. Had he been Chaplain of this House he might have advised hon. Members that with the anti-housers you will learn anti-housing. It is a source of great grief to me that one with such a record should have produced so reactionary a Measure.

Major BIRCHALL: I cannot help thinking that the complexion of this Debate on both sides of the Chamber has been unnecessarily gloomy. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr. C. Roberts) said he could not see that the Bill would do anything whatever for the country districts. I have the good fortune to live in a country district although I represent an industrial area, and, in my opinion, that is altogether too gloomy a prognostication. It is true the agricultural labourer with the miserable wage which he at present receives, is unable to pay the rent for one of these new houses. But everyone who lives in a country district knows that there are men in superior positions—or else agricultural labourers with grown-up families earning wages and increasing the family income—who can pay the rents of these houses. There are people such as tradespeople, postmen, policemen, roadmen and so forth, who earn considerably more than agricultural wages and who could pay for houses such as are proposed under the Bill. There are in every village, men
living in the smallest cottages paying 2s. or 2s. 6d. a week who could well afford to take one of the new houses. If they do so, there will be a chance for the agricultural labourers to get the smaller and cheaper houses. Therefore, in the country districts, although the new houses will not, in the majority of cases, accommodate agricultural labourers, yet they will enable those labourers to secure better housing. The whole thing comes back to the question of the price at which the houses can be built. Hon. Members have suggested £500 and even £700 as a possible figure. If houses are to cost anything like that, the whole scheme will be waterlogged from the start. I submit that the cost of a house should not be more than £350 at the outside, and if you can reduce the cost to £350, including parlour, then the—

The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid the hon. Member is going beyond this very limited Amendment which, as I have already pointed out, deals only with the question of whether the subsidy should be confined to the larger municipalities or not. The general questions of the subsidy and the price of the houses do not arise.

Major BIRCHALL: I am sorry, but I was endeavouring to answer points which had been made earlier. I conclude by saying that if the price can be reduced to £350 then the loss will not be more than can be made good by the subsidy. I would inform the Committee that the City of Leeds did not ask for even a £6 subsidy, but would have been perfectly content with a £4 subsidy, and to-day there are non-parlour houses being built in the City of Leeds at £285 and parlour houses at £320. What the City of Leeds can do a great many other places can do.

Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: The hon. and gallant Member for North East Leeds (Major Birchall) has introduced into the Debate a note of cheery optimism for which I venture to think the Minister of Health, at least, must be extremely grateful, but I cannot agree with all that has fallen from the lips of my hon. and gallant Friend. It has been said that this Bill will serve very little useful purpose, even in the large municipalities of this country. If that be so in the case of England, it will certainly be so in the case of Scotland, and if it is to serve no useful purpose in the case of the large
municipalities in Scotland, then I venture to emphasise what has been said by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair), who spoke for the Highlands of Scotland, that very little will be achieved in the rural areas of Scotland under this Financial Resolution if it is carried as it stands on the Paper to-day. My hon. and gallant Friend has laid stress upon the situation as affected by this Bill, so far as relates to the Highlands of Scotland, but there are other parts of Scotland in which the situation, if the Resolution is allowed to stand, will be equally serious. It has been suggested by the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman) and others who have spoken that there are great difficulties in meeting the case, that rents vary, that rateable values vary in different districts throughout the country, and that the case, therefore, is a very difficult one to meet if it be held that the fiat rate which now forms the basis of the Resolution should be discarded, but I urge upon the right hon. Gentleman that he should not close his mind to-night to this Amendment, but that he should take steps between this and the Report stage to see whether the case of rural areas cannot be met.
So far as I know the cases in the part of Scotland which I inhabit and which I represent, I venture to say quite sincerely to the right hon. Gentleman that this Bill will be perfectly useless and that no houses will be built under it, because the local authorities in the areas of low rateable value will be unable, on behalf of the constituents whom they represent, to shoulder the burden. I recollect that when what is known as the Addison scheme was going through this House in the last Parliament, I urged upon the Minister then in charge of the Bill that for rural areas in Scotland much more would probably be achieved by allowing and assisting the reconstruction of existing houses than in embarking on large schemes of building new houses with the aid of the Government subsidy, and even now, at this late hour, I would urge upon the Minister of Health that he consult with his Scottish colleague, the Secretary for Scotland, to see whether something could not be done, at probably a cheaper cost to the State and the local authorities, to help the housing problem in the rural areas of Scotland by assisting
in the reconstruction of existing houses. I urge upon the Minister that he should give to this particular problem that is raised by this Amendment very careful and further consideration between this and the Report stage of the Resolution.

9.0 P.M.

Mr. NEVILLE CHAMBERLAIN: The Amendment which has been the subject of the Debate is, as you, Mr. Chairman, have pointed out, strictly limited in scope, and it is rather a good illustration, I think, of the difficulty of the subject that hon. Members who have tried to put into the form of an Amendment something in the nature of a constructive suggestion by way of alternative to what is in the Bill at once land themselves into difficulties, which shows that they have not really thought out the question. What would be the result of this Amendment, if it were carried? The first result would be that it would cut off all assistance for those public utility societies which come under Clause 3, and the second result would be that it would cut off all chance of assisting the existing public utility societies, for whom we hope to do something under Sub-section (2) of Clause 6. How it would leave the authorities which have less than 250,000 population I do not quite know. Apparently they would have no assistance either, but, of course, I am perfectly aware that that is not the intention of the hon. Members who moved the Amendment, and I refer to it now only because it is so much easier to say, "Your proposition is full of defects, and I could make a great deal better Bill of it if only I had the making of it," than really to do it.
My difficulty is not so much to defend my proposition from the accusations that have been made against it that it does not deal equally with the local authorities—I admit that frankly; of course, it does not—as to see how you can find a better scheme or one that will make for greater equality and be less open to criticism. We are really dealing here with a question even broader in its scope than that which we were debating earlier in the afternoon. That was a matter of Scotland versus England, but the problem which we are discussing now is really the same, and it really raises what is at the root of the whole part of the Bill, which deals with the question of subsidies. Once you have agreed that a subsidy is
to be given, what is the system upon which you are to give it? We have gone in this Bill for a flat rate, and all the criticisms that have been made are really criticisms directed against the flat rate at all. The right hon. Member for the Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) has, I think, fairly clearly suggested, both to-night and on the Second Reading of the Bill, that he would prefer to go back to what he calls the Addison terms.

Sir J. SIMON: indicated dissent.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I hope I am not misrepresenting the right hon. Gentleman, but that is what I understood from his observations.

Sir J. SIMON: It is not what I said, and, therefore, I should be sorry to think it was what I implied. I said it was no use having terms which would not produce the houses, and I contrasted the terms of the Addison plan with these terms, and I said that, whatever might be said for the flat rate as being suitable for the towns, it did not follow that the flat rate would be suitable for the country.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I will come to that presently. The right hon. Gentleman began by saying that this Housing Bill of ours will not produce houses, and that the Addison scheme did produce houses; I took him to suggest, naturally, that we should return to the Addison terms. All I can say is, that if that is not what he meant, then he did not succeed in conveying to me what his meaning really was. There is an Amendment later with another proposition suggesting a similar objection to the one before us just now. What we have before us now is an attempt to draw an arbitrary line with a certain figure of population. I need only point out that Bristol would fall on one side of the line and Cardiff on the other to show the difficulties you will get into when you try to draw an arbitrary line of that kind. I can imagine the right hon. Gentleman opposite getting up a cartload of cases to show the absurd distinction which would then exist and the difficulty of justifying it. I do not want now to discuss the later Amendment to the effect that you are to have an aggregate sum for the United Kingdom, but I think it must be obvious that that is a matter—

Sir A. SINCLAIR: I think I explained that the principle of this Amendment was that the people on one side of the line would be those whom the right hon. Gentleman quoted—roughly the 250,000 figure.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The fact is you cannot really draw a line so that the subsidy on this side of the line shall be so much and the subsidy on the other side shall be less or more. There is only one practical alternative plan to that proposed in the Bill, anti that is that you should share the loss. Of course you can work according to the Addison plan and share a loss; but the Addison plan had this unfortunate attribute, that the loss was shared unequally. As my right hon. Friend said, in some cases, the loss was nine parts to the State and only one part to the local authority. It would be possible to say as we have said in dealing with the question of slum areas, that you shall estimate the loss in each case, and then halve it between the State and the local authorities. That would be a possible plan, but that is open to serious objection. The hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Webb), in speaking on this question on the Second Reading, intimated that he should strongly approve of the general line which I had taken on the question of giving the local authorities the utmost possible latitude. The right hon. Gentleman, I think, suggested that only by taking that line with the local authorities should we get this matter dealt with in a businesslike way at all. It is absolutely impossible in Whitehall to keep ourselves acquainted with all the local differences, prejudices, and preferences. We must in dealing with the local authorities leave them to decide, as far as possible, according to their own knowledge of the circumstances.
It seems to be postulated by some hon. Members that the annual loss should be divided equally between the State and the local authority. But in this we should have to exercise the most minute and complete control over every single item of expenditure. Again, we should have to do what my right hon. Friend opposite so much deprecated about the Addison scheme, that is engage an army of officials; and, again, we should have to draw up rules and regulations under which every local authority would be controlled. We should plunge at once into
an atmosphere of bureaucracy and should again find ourselves confronted with the same sort of difficulties which caused us so much trouble before. Therefore it is in view of considerations like that, that we have found ourselves forced to go back to a flat rate. Having accepted the flat rate, of course, the next question is whether that flat rate is sufficient. It clearly cannot be quite advantageous for every authority because ex hypothesi the conditions do vary. We have got to strike a sort of balance. A great deal of the—well, I will not say criticism—but of comment has been upon the fact that a bargain, as it is called, had been struck with only a certain number of local authorities. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Well, I do not know what authority you could get who would be more representative of the municipalities than the Association of Municipal Corporations. I do not think you would get a more representative body than we had at that conference.

Sir J. SIMON: They do not represent the rural authorities.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am coming to that question directly. I am only saying that, so far as the authorities were represented by the Association of Municipal Corporations, and the other corporations there, the figure which was settled upon was a figure named by themselves, and accepted by me. To call it a compromise or a bargain is, I think, a misdescription altogether. It was not a bargain except in the sense in which the husband and wife disagreed as to the painting of the door, and ultimately the compromise agreed upon by the two was green—which was what the wife wanted at first. I accepted it. I did so particularly on behalf of what I may call two sections, that is the smaller industrial areas, and the rural areas. It would, I think, be perfectly preposterous to suggest that every time any kind of subsidy is handed out from the Exchequer we should examine what are the rates in every particular locality, and, if they are extra there, fix the subsidy accordingly. That does not seem to me to be the way to go about it. These particular industrial areas are termed necessitous areas. [An HON. MEMBER: "So they are."] Let them make their claim on that ground.
In regard to the rural areas, I confess that I do see that the rural areas are in a
rather different position from any of the others of which I have spoken. I have always thought that the circumstances in connection with rural or agricultural areas in housing, at any rate, differed in two important respects from the urban and city areas. First of all, the problem here is a stationary one. It is not, a problem which involves an annual increase of population. You have got in the villages a state of things under which so far as I know—I am not speaking as if every village were the same, but of a great many villages—a considerable number of houses were built many, many years ago. These have got into a thoroughly bad condition, and ought to be pulled down. But they cannot be pulled down because there is no place for the people to go. The situation is aggravated temporarily by the tremendous pressure coming from the towns from people who can not find accommodation there, and have gone into the villages. They have added to the congestion there, and in many cases they have made what was certainly bad before, ten times worse. That is one difference. The other difference, of course, is the well-known one that the rents of the houses in agricultural areas inhabited by agricultural labourers have never been economic rents. They have always been far below the economic return on capital, and certainly it would seem a little hard that that state of things should be attempted to be remedied at a time when the country is oppressed with such an enormous problem as we have before us in housing from one end of the country to the other.
I agree with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North-East Leeds (Major Birchall) in saying that somewhat too gloomy a picture has been painted of what can be done in rural areas under this Bill. We have had a number of calculations which have been brought forward, showing that the loss in the case of these houses in the country is something like £25 a year instead of £12. What sort of subsidy would be necessary in order to enable the local authority in such a case as that to provide the houses I do not know, but evidently it would have to be a great deal more than some hon. Gentlemen have calculated who have complained that the subsidy is inadequate as it stands. Of course, it really all depends upon what figures you start from. My right hon. Friend the Attorney-General the other
night said that he had got a calculation which showed that it was possible for a local authority to build a house in certain agricultural areas, and that the loss upon that house would involve that local authority in something less in the way of subsidy than the figure we propose to give in the Bill. I do not want to have it thought that I am building my case upon any such calculation as that. The figures must differ from place to place throughout the country, and my right hon. Friend, in saying that, did not mean it to be understood that that was what we believed was going to happen in every agricultural area throughout the country. What he said was that it would be possible that such a house might be built under such circumstances as that, and I have no doubt there are cases where the subsidy will be quite adequate.
I am bound to recognise that when you have a subsidy which is going to be distributed on the basis of a flat rate, it is natural to suppose that where it is more favourable to the local authority, they will take greater advantage of it, and I admit it is not going to produce the building of houses at an equal rate in every locality throughout the country. I will admit, too, that the rural areas as a whole will have greater difficulty in building houses under this Bill than in other areas, precisely for the reason mentioned by my hon. Friends, that the rents are not economic rents, but are as low as 5s., 4s., 3s., and even as low as 2s., a week.
Of course, you cannot expect to provide for that case, and that illustrates exactly what was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman), that it is impossible to see how you can at the same time, and under the same proposals, have a proposition which will be proper and adequate for the town, and which will, at the same time, suit the country. The two things are so different in many ways that I do not think it is possible, but what I do say is this—and I call attention once more to what I said on the Second Reading of the Bill—after all, this proposition of the subsidy is a temporary one. It is one that deals with a comparatively short period of time when you think of the time that these conditions have lasted. I said that it was not the whole policy; it was the beginning of a policy. I said it was impossible to
suppose that this or any other Bill would provide all the houses that were required to make up the shortage which has accumulated for so many years. I say, again, that is the way I regard this question. I regard this only as a beginning. I do not for one moment contemplate that the building of houses can stop in 1925, and I would go as far as to say this: If it is found that, under this Bill, by reason of conditions which are not due to extravagance, which are not due to inefficiency on the part of local authorities—if it is found that, owing to conditions which are outside their control altogether, it has not been found possible to erect houses where they are urgently required, then I do consider that in any further legislation, if further legislation there be, those districts would have a claim upon the consideration of the Government which would be superior to the claim of those whose needs have been largely met.
Let me say one other thing before I sit down. It has been assumed all through that it is merely a question of these houses being provided by the local authorities, but anybody who knows the conditions of the country, knows that in the past houses have been frequently built by private individuals, by the landlord, and by the squire, partly because he wanted accommodation for the people who worked upon his estate, partly because of his general sense of duty towards the community in which he lived. I do not see why that process should not go on. I do not see why, if local authorities give the subsidy to anyone who desires to build a house from such motives as that in a village, they should not do so under this Bill, and I, for my part, do not see why this subsidy, even where it cannot give a local authority opportunity to build houses without incurring a serious loss, should not give sufficient stimulus to bring back those motives which prompted landlords to build houses in the old days. Somewhat of a similar consideration was present to my mind when the hon. and gallant Member for East Rhondda (Lieut.-Colonel Watts-Morgan) was speaking about the conditions in South Wales. There you have, as he said, a need for a great number of new houses. As an hon. Member said, in an eloquent speech in the course of the Debate on Second Reading, you want in South Wales to build, not merely a few houses on the outskirts of
existing villages, but to get new sites altogether, and build houses under better conditions than are possible now. Colliery-owners are doing a great deal to build houses in many parts of England, and, I believe, in some parts of Wales. It does seem to me it is rather up to them to try to take advantage of the assistance which we can give them under this Bill, and to make that contribution themselves towards the solution of this problem which so many other employers are doing in other places.

Mr. EDE: I had been hoping that while the Minister of Health was speaking we should have heard some indication that in framing the Bill he had discussed the problems of house building with some other representatives of local authorities than those represented on the Association of Municipal Corporations. It is obvious, from the discussion we have had to-day, that there is very considerable feeling among representatives of rural district councils and urban district councils that they were not consulted in the framing of this Bill. After all, the Rural District Councils Association and the Urban District Councils Association are the two bodies that represent those people upon whom the special difficulties with which the right hon. Gentleman has just been dealing will fall most hardly. During the week-end I have been seeing a large number of the urban district councillors in my constituency, and I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that those who most violently supported the Government during the recent by-election, they are now most violently attacking them for the very inadequate Measures they have produced. The Mitcham Division covers the areas of three urban district councils, and it gives some indication of the difficulties with which urban district councils are faced when one analyses the exact effect of the proposals in this Bill on that area. The Urban District of Mitcham consists of 35,000 people, and is the poorest urban district in the righest county in England. So poor is it, that under the provisions adumbrated by Lord Ullswater in the recent Royal Commission on Greater London, it would receive from the equalisation scheme he proposed a benefit of 12.8 pence, although Bermondsey, admittedly one of the poorest boroughs in London, would only get 12.2 pence.
Mitcham, at the present time, requires 1,100 houses to complete the requirements it foreshadowed under the Addison scheme. A clergyman said to me yesterday that he knew in the parish of Mitcham whole streets which were worse than anything he had seen in Southwark or Poplar, and he had had considerable experience of both those boroughs. If we build these 1,100 houses in Mitcham and proceed on the assumption, on which I think the municipal corporations do, that the loss would be equally divided between the State and the municipality, we should then have to shoulder in Mitcham an annual loss during the first 20 years of £6,600, the equivalent of a 10d. rate. Can it be imagined that any municipality or urban district in this country is going to levy itself with a 10d. rate to deal with the housing question? Therefore, it seems to me that this Bill should be redrafted in such a way as would enable the poorer districts to have their burden shared by the richer districts. By forcing on these small urban districts, consisting entirely of poor people, as does the one I have just given as an instance; by compelling them to shoulder the whole burden of their particular area you are putting back the work of housing reform in the districts where it is most needed. I hope that between now and Wednesday there will be some response to the appeals that have been made, not only from this side, but from the other side of the Committee, to get this properly dealt with. I am afraid the Committee must have felt that there was something akin to despair in the closing part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech when he said that if this did not produce the houses, the people who cannot build houses under this Bill must have the best chance under the next scheme. It is a great pity that we cannot impress on the Government the necessity of dealing with housing in this Bill. The existing Bill is the one before this country, and the country is expecting from the Ministry and from this House some speedy solution of the evils from which it now suffers.
Last August, as Chairman of the Housing Committee of Epsom, I had to meet 173 applicants for houses, all of them ex-service men living in rooms or in overcrowded conditions. We had 30 houses for which they had to ballot, and there
were pregnant women sitting watching their husbands ballot for the houses, hoping that he would get one, because his success or failure in that ballot would determine whether their children were to be born in a home or in the workhouse. That is going on all over the country week after week and is creating a feeling in this country that I wonder a Conservative Government allows to grow in the way it does. Can it be imagined that if three minutes before "zero time" anyone had gone along the ranks and said to the men in France, "You may be risking your lives to-day, but it will depend on the luck of a ballot whether your child is born in a home or in the workhouse," anyone would have believed that this country would have so far forgotten its promises as to allow such a state of things to exist? These small local authorities are generally too small adequately to administer a district, but their very smallness makes this problem an increasingly heavy one with them, and we are placing on the members of local authorities a burden of responsibility it is unfair to ask them to shoulder. After all, in the districts they are the people who stand to be shot at. The man who wants a house goes to them, and he does not understand, I am afraid, very often the difficulties this House places in the way of local authorities in dealing with this particular issue. I can only hope that this House will show by its vote on this particular Amendment that it does desire that these small authorities shall not be placed in this insufferable position, but that they shall be given a real and fair chance to deal with the appalling social problem that confronts ton many of them.

Colonel NEWMAN: The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has spoken apparently with some knowledge of what urban district councils are saying and thinking. I speak as President of the Urban District Councils Association, and what he says is wrong. If he really thinks that the urban district councils are afraid of what is thrown on them by this Bill he is perfectly wrong. The Minister of Health told the Committee a few minutes ago that this Bill, if it becomes an Act, will have to be worked with the local authorities, and if they cannot work it the Act will fail. Speaking as President, I am sorry that in consulting
other authorities he did not consult the Association of urban district councils. He apparently only consulted certain municipal councils. I am sorry, because if he had consulted them he would have been told that with regard to this flat rate there was a difficulty, that even in urban district councils this flat rate would operate somewhat unfairly, and they would have put up to him certain amendments for his consideration. They have asked me to put two amendments down, and I have done so; but I am told now that they are out of order and that it will not be possible to discuss them. I am very sorry, because I do think that if hon. Members will read my Amendment to insert words after the word "years" ["not exceeding twenty years"] and my previous Amendment to leave out the words "not exceeding a sum"—

The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid the hon. Member cannot read his Amendment that has been out of order on a previous occasion.

Colonel NEWMAN: You have not ruled me out of order yet, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN: I do now.

Colonel NEWMAN: I have been ruled out of order on these Amendments, but I do say what a pity it is. They are Amendments well worth discussion, and ought not to be ruled out on legal or technical grounds.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Gentleman really must not pursue that line of argument. Either his Amendments are in order or they are not. If they are not, they must not be discussed, and he must not regret that they are not being discussed.

Colonel NEWMAN: At any rate, we have had the admission that the right hon. Gentleman is afraid that this Bill if it becomes an Act will not work in certain districts in England, not alone in urban but in some rural districts, and that certain measures will have to be brought in at a later stage. I am sorry. If he had taken into consideration what these associations, urban and rural, were anxious to tell him, it would not have been necessary for him to make that rather sad confession that, probably shortly, he would have to bring in another amending Bill.

Mr. T. THOMSON: There has been an extraordinary expression of feeling from all sides of the House, as to the weakness of this Financial Resolution, from hon. Members representing Scotland, Wales, rural and urban England and the municipalities, and they have all raised objections to the working of these particular financial arrangements. The Minister of Health admitted that they were far from perfect, but he asked what we suggested in their place. With regard to the alternative it is impossible under the rules of the House for hon. Members to put down an alternative which would meet the case by means of increasing the flat rate of £6 to some larger sum which would enable urban and rural local authorities and municipalities to build the houses which are so urgently wanted. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Pretyman) said the rural authorities would not raise any objection if they felt that the urban districts were going to benefit, but they are not.
The Minister of Health referred to the Municipal Corporations Association, but there seems to me to be some misunderstanding in regard to what he stated. He said that there was no question of a compromise in regard to what was in the Bill because it was a suggestion made by them, and accepted by him. I submit that there has been a serious misunderstanding, because I have here a copy of the minutes of the Municipal Corporations Association meeting giving a report of this Conference with the Minister of Health. They quote from the official document issued by the Ministry, which states that, after considerable discussion, the Minister agreed to offer a subsidy of £6 per house per annum for 20 years to be available for a house of five rooms, and this was accepted by them as one which would enable them to press forward the building of houses with the utmost vigour. I submit that that statement is at variance with what the right hon. Gentleman told the Committee, for he informed the Committee that the Association suggested this amount, and that he accepted it.
In January last the local authorities, as represented by the Municipal Corporations Association, pressed upon the Minister the need of a grant of £6 per house per annum during the whole of the
loan period. That was the proposition of the Municipal Corporations Association, which was confirmed by various conferences at Manchester and Leeds with the full assent of that association. Finally, after further negotiations, a small committee representing Manchester and certain large cities associated with the Municipal Corporations Association accepted the compromise. That compromise has never been before the local authorities themselves. I have received letters from various local authorities protesting that the sum suggested is totally inadequate. I have received a letter from the town clerk of Walsall saying that at a largely attended meeting at Birmingham on Wednesday representing borough, urban, and rural authorities in the West Midlands, the resolution passed by the Walsall authority as to the inadequacy of this grant was unanimously carried. I think the Minister of Health will be well advised, if he really desires the hearty co-operation of municipal and local authorities throughout the country, to further consider before Wednesday next the representations which have been made to him from all parts of this House as to the inadequacy of the sum which he is proposing.
The Minister of Health has asked us what we can propose that is better, and he suggested that the alternative was a 1d. rate and the flat rate of £6. I think the right hon. Gentleman ought to alter the £6 grant to £7 or £8. The Resolution says "not exceeding a sum of £6." If altered to "a sum not exceeding £7 or £8" the right hon. Gentleman would still have power to vary the amount according to the particular needs of certain districts. The Minister suggested that what I have put forward would mean setting up a huge army of local inspectors, but you could have regional areas, which I admit is a rough and ready form of justice, but if you had four or five regions you would reduce the injustice which would occur if you have only one flat rate for the whole of the United Kingdom. You have the regional arrangement under which the trades unions deal with wages and costs. Then there is the 50–50 arrangement, which is the very scheme the right hon. Gentleman has adopted for dealing with slum clearances. I think the 50–50 arrangement would not involve a huge army of officials or that interference from Whitehall which the Minister suggested.
Consider what has happened under Departments of the Ministry of Health. Already you have grants for infant welfare and maternity, and the feeding of school children under the Education authority. All these are based on certain percentages, and yet you have not that interference from headquarters which the right hon. Gentleman has foreshadowed. For these grants you have certain well-defined Regulations, and, provided they are kept, the arrangements work admirably under the Ministry of Health and the Board of Education. For these reasons I submit to the Committee that there is a precedent in existence working smoothly, without an undue amount of interference, whereby the difficulty of the flat rate could be overcome, and under which local authorities would be able to exert themselves to the utmost to provide the houses, which we all admit are so urgently needed.
I thought the speech of the Minister of Health was even more gloomy than the discussion that preceded it, for he suggested that we had to fall back on the tied house which the landlord, out of charity, might provide: and that the collieries or the works might build houses for their workmen. I thought the day had gone by for the erection of tied houses, and that the workman should be free to live where he likes. The difficulties and the objections to tied houses are acknowledged on all sides. People have been waiting for houses since 1915 and you are now asking them to wait for another two years. The patience of those who have been without houses has been extraordinary, a patience that many of us would not have exercised under similar circumstances. I do appeal to the Minister that he should, between now and Wednesday, see whether he cannot introduce Amendments, or, if necessary, withdraw this Financial Resolution and submit a fresh one, either on the basis of a regional grant, according to the needs of well-defined areas, or on a 50–50 basis. It would enable local authorities to go ahead with full speed to provide these houses for which people have been waiting all too long.

Captain BENN: The question is, Is the Bill going to produce houses? A flat rate has an appearance of equity. True equity consists in pro
viding houses in the measure of the need of the locality. You speak of a flat rate, and it may save the Ministry a great deal of trouble. It is necessary that the Ministry should not be over-burdened with staff and expense, but if it does not provide houses, nothing has been achieved. What is the reply of the Minister? I think his speech on the Second Reading was a dispiriting performance. Those who heard his speech must have felt that there were not many houses between the front and back page of the Bill. Those who heard his speech must have been convinced that the Minister of Health had the best anticipations, but a very meagre supply of dwellings from these proposals. He admits that the problem as between town and country is different, and that the rent is different, but he goes on to say:
After all, what could you expect? This is only a human work. We are only human beings, and if I cannot provide rural dwellings in this Bill it is not my fault; it is the ordinary imperfections of human nature.
That is not what we want. We want houses for the rural districts. We want houses for Scotland, and we do not see them in this Bill. I have looked up what this Bill will do for the urban district of Newburn-on-Tyne, which contains an historic village called Walbottle. At Walbottle the rateable value is £78, and a penny rate, according to the local guide book, provides £350. It is one of the worst-housed places in the country, and the need for houses runs into tens of hundreds. The produce of a penny rate, if the subsidy was £6, would be about 60 houses. Could anyone pretend that this Bill would provide sufficient houses for a district like that, or many others? The Minister happened to refer to the Rhondda Valley. Many Welsh Members could speak with full knowledge on this, but I happen to have the figures of the house-building in the. Rhondda Valley—the number of new houses passed for occupation. The Minister said the colliery owners were glad to build houses for their people, and that in Wales they will supply whatever is needed. These are figures for the Rhondda Valley. In 1909 the number of new houses passed for occupation was 1,025. That was the year of the bad Budget. In 1910, 926 houses were provided. In 1899, under a Tory Administration, the number was only 157. The
new houses passed for occupation in 1916 numbered 129; in 1917, again during the War, the number was 26; in 1918, 10, and in 1919, 1, while in 1920 the number was again 1. Those are the figures, and that is the effort on which the Minister of Health is proposing to rely to supply housing needs for the Rhondda Valley—one house in two successive years. In short, the specific is a subsidy for the town. If you provide for the industrial worker the rural worker can depend upon the good nature of someone to provide houses. That is not our conception of housing. To summarize, Sir, in conclusion, I should like to say this about the Amendments. Our Amendment must

receive the support of all those who have housing needs at heart. The Minister of Health will not allow this Amendment to be voted on without the party Whips. It should receive the support of Scottish Members, who believe that arrangements for the subsidy are inadequate for Scotland, and it should receive the support of all rural Members, and Members for small urban districts, on whom will fall the burden of carrying out this work. The arrangements made in the Bill will not work to provide houses.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 129; Noes, 236.

Division No. 118.]
AYES.
[9.57 p.m.


Adams, D.
Harris, Percy A.
O'Grady, Captain James


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hastings, Patrick
Parkinson, John Allan (Wigan)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hay, Captain J. P. (Cathcart)
Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry


Barnes, A.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (N'castle, E.)
Phillipps, Vivian


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar (Banff)
Henderson, Sir T. (Roxburgh)
Ponsonby, Arthur


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Pringle, W. M. R.


Bennett, A. J. (Mansfield)
Hillary, A. E.
Richards, R.


Berkeley, Captain Reginald
Hinds, John
Roberts, C. H. (Derby)


Bonwick, A.
Hodge, Rt. Hon. John
Robinson, W. C. (York, Elland)


Bowdler, W. A.
Hogge, James Myles
Royce, William Stapleton


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Jarrett, G. W. S.
Saklatvala, S.


Broad, F. A.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Salter, Dr. A.


Brotherton, J.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Scrymgeour, E.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)
Sexton, James


Buchanan, G.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Shaw, Thomas (Preston)


Burgess, S.
Jones, R. T. (Carnarvon)
Shinwell, Emanuel


Buxton, Charles (Accrington)
Jowett, F. W. (Bradford, East)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Cairns, John
Jowitt, W. A. (The Hartlepools)
Snell, Harry


Cape, Thomas
Kenyon, Barnet
Snowden, Philip


Chapple, W. A.
Lansbury, George
Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)


Charleton, H. C.
Leach, W.
Stephen, Campbell


Clarke, Sir E. C.
Lee, F.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Lees-Smith, H. B. (Keighley)
Strauss, Edward Anthony


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Linfield, F. C.
Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Lowth, T.
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Darbishire, C. W.
Lyle-Samuel, Alexander
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)
McCurdy, Rt. Hon. Charles A.
Thornton, M.


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
MacDonald, J. R. (Aberavon)
Trevelyan, C. P.


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
M'Entee, V. L.
Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)


Duncan, C.
McLaren, Andrew
Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.


Ede, James Chuter
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Entwistle, Major C. F.
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Falconer, J.
March, S.
Weir, L. M.


Gosling, Harry
Marshall, Sir Arthur H.
Wheatley, J.


Gray, Frank (Oxford)
Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, E.)
White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)


Greenall, T.
Millar, J. D.
White, H. G. (Birkenhead, E.)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred Moritz
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Morel, E. D.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Groves, T.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Wintringham, Margaret


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Mosley, Oswald
Wright, W.


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Muir, John W.
Young, Rt. Hon. E. H. (Norwich)


Hancock, John George
Murray, Hon. A. C. (Aberdeen)



Harbord, Arthur
Newbold, J. T. W.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Harney, E. A.
Nichol, Robert
Sir A., Sinclair and Major




Mackenzie Wood.


NOES.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Banks, Mitchell
Betterton, Henry B.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton, East)
Barlow, Rt. Hon. Sir Montague
Birchall, Major J. Dearman


Apsley, Lord
Barnett, Major Richard W.
Blades, Sir George Rowland


Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin
Barnston, Major Harry
Blundell, F. N.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W.
Becker, Harry
Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.


Astor, J. J. (Kent, Dover)
Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Brass, Captain W.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Berry, Sir George
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive


Brittain, Sir Harry
Hawke, John Anthony
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Brown, Major D. C. (Hexham)
Hay, Major T. W. (Norfolk, South)
Peto, Basil E.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Pielou, D. P.


Buckingham, Sir H.
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Pilditch, Sir Philip


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford
Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Herbert, S. (Scarborough)
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton


Burn, Colonel Sir Charles Rosdew
Hewett, Sir J. P.
Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.


Burney, Com. (Middx., Uxbridge)
Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)


Butcher, Sir John George
Hiley, Sir Ernest
Remer, J. R.


Butler, H. M. (Leeds, North)
Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G.
Reynolds, W. G. W.


Cadogan, Major Edward
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Rhodes, Lieut.-Col. J. P.


Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy
Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)


Cassels, J. D.
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Cautley, Henry Strother
Hood, Sir Joseph
Roberts, Rt. Hon. Sir S. (Ecclesall)


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Hopkins, John W. W.
Robertson- Despencer, Major (Isl'gt'n W.)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Rogerson, Capt. J. E.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Houfton, John Plowright
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Churchman, Sir Arthur
Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.)
Ruggles-Brise, Major E.


Clarry, Reginald George
Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Clayton, G. C.
Hudson, Capt. A.
Russell-Wells, Sir Sydney


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hume, G. H.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Hurd, Percy A.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Hutchison, G. A. C. (Midlothian, N.)
Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A.


Cope, Major William
Hutchison, W. (Kelvingrove)
Sanderson, Sir Frank B.


Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Sandon, Lord


Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Jenkins, W. A. (Brecon and Radnor)
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Croft, Lieut.-Colonel Henry Page
Jephcott, A. R.
Shepperson, E. W.


Crook, C. W. (East Ham, North)
Jodrell, Sir Neville Paul
Shipwright, Captain D.


Crooke, J. S. (Deritend)
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Singleton, J. E.


Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)
Joynson-Hicks, Sir William
Skelton, A. N.


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham)
Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Kennedy, Captain M. S. Nigel
Smith, Sir Harold (Wavertree)


Dawson, Sir Philip
King, Capt. Henry Douglas
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Dixon, C. H. (Rutland)
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Somerville, Daniel (Barrow-in-Furn'ss)


Doyle, N. Grattan
Lamb, J. Q.
Sparkes, H. W.


Du Pre, Colonel William Baring
Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Colonel G. R.
Spender-Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Stanley, Lord


Ednam, Viscount
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Steel, Major S. Strang


Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Lorimer, H. D.
Stewart, Gershom (Wirral)


Ellis, R. G.
Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)
Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H.


England, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Lumley, L. R.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Erskine-Bolst, Captain C.
McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid H.


Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.
Maddocks, Henry
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Falcon, Captain Michael
Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfrey
Manville, Edward
Titchfield, Marquess of


Fermor-Hesketh, Major T.
Mason, Lieut.-Col. C. K.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Ford, Patrick Johnston
Mercer, Colonel H.
Tubbs, S. W.


Foreman, Sir Henry
Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden)
Turton, Edmund Russborough


Forestier-Walker, L.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Foxcroft, Captain Charles Taibot
Molloy, Major L. G. S.
Wallace, Captain E.


Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Molson, Major John Elsdale
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.
Watson, Capt. J. (Stockton-on-Tees)


Furness, G. J.
Morden, Col. W. Grant
Watts, Dr. T. (Man., Withington)


Galbraith, J. F. W.
Morrison, Hugh (Wilts, Salisbury)
Wells, S. R.


Ganzoni, Sir John
Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)
Weston, Colonel John Wakefield


Garland, C. S.
Murchison, C. K.
White, Lt.-Col. G. D. (Southport)


Gates, Percy
Nall, Major Joseph
Whitla, Sir William


Gaunt, Rear-Admiral Sir Guy R.
Nesbitt, Robert C.
Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)


Goff, Sir R. Park
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)
Newson, Sir Percy Wilson
Wise, Frederick


Crenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Wolmer, Viscount


Gwynne, Rupert S.
Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)
Wood, Maj. Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Nield, Sir Herbert
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Haistead, Major D.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward


Hamilton, Sir George C. (Altrincham)
Paget, T. G.
Yerburgh, R. D. T.


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Parker, Owen (Kettering)



Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Pennefather, De Fonblanque
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Harrison, F. C.
Penny, Frederick George
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Colonel


Harvey, Major S. E.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Gibbs.

Mr. HARRIS: I beg to move to leave out paragraph (a).
We have had a very long discussion for the greater part of the evening. We have had the case of Scotland, if I may say so, very effectively put, and I venture to suggest that other parts of the country
do not come out of the scheme from a financial point of view precisely in a satisfactory way. I happen to be a London Member and I venture to point out to the Minister of Health that the Greater London area represents a population very much larger than the whole of
Scotland. Scotland has a population of 4,500,000, while in Greater London there are 7,000,000, but the authorities in London are by no means satisfied with the financial proposals of this Bill. I put it to this Committee, that if the Committee is not satisfied that the scheme is to be practicable from the financial point of view, it would be an advantage if it did not come to a Third Reading. The Act of 1919 was comprehensive and large and dealt in every direction with the housing question. Where it broke down, if it did break down, was in its financial proposals. It was producing the houses. The houses had actually been going up under its provisions during the last three or four years. Why these houses came to be stopped was not because of the provisions of the scheme, but because the last Government came to the conclusion that its financial provisions were too generous. Whatever may be said in favour of the new scheme contained in this Bill no one would accuse its financial provisions of being too generous. They have apparently been worked out in careful collaboration with some of the great municipal centres, principally Manchester and Leeds. I would suggest to the Minister of Health that it is unwise, if he is to have these conferences, to have only a few privileged authorities present.
If the Minister is going to follow in the future the policy of consulting local authorities before he introduces legislation into the House of Commons, he ought to be satisfied that those he consults really represent the local authorities throughout the country, not only in Scotland, but also in England, and that the Metropolis, where. I venture to say, the problem is more serious, more difficult and larger than in other parts of the counry, should be a party to such conferences. I see there is a report coming before the London County Council to-morrow, which represents 4,500,000 people, where a resolution is to be put forward approving the action of the Finance Committee in making representations to the Minister of Health in favour of amending Clause 1 of the Housing Bill so as to obtain, mark my words, adequate financial assistance. London is not satisfied, and I would say to him that I think there is every justification for it. A very eloquent case was put up in various parts of the Committee for rural areas, and especially for
Scotland, because of the high cost of construction, but in London the cost of construction, owing to the higher rate of wages paid in the building trade—the cost of production per cubic foot in London is larger practically than in any other part of the country. The higher wages are due to the fact, generally admitted, that London being a metropolis, the cost of living is greater and the wages, as agreed upon between the Federation of the Building Trades and the various trade unions, are higher.
One thing I want to suggest to the Committee as being most unsatisfactory is that there is no guarantee that the Treasury will make an allowance that will satisfy the demands felt throughout the country. After all, Ministers come and go. They have a way of changing. I remember in the last Government Dr. Addison gave way to the right hon. Member for West Swansea (Sir A. Mond). Dr. Addison put forward very generous terms. When his successor came into office, those terms were thrown over. I would point out to the Committee that the term of office of the right hon. gentleman the Minister of Health now occupied by the right hon. Gentleman who is so distinguished an ornament of the Front Bench—that his predecessors' terms of office were remarkably small, and we ought to have some guarantee to the local authorities who have to embark on these schemes that the terms are not only generous but are not to be changed. These financial provisions make an allowance of £6 per house. You cannot deal adequately with the housing problem without making comprehensive arrangements. You cannot turn out houses like sausages from a machine. You have to lay out the land, you have to put down the roads and arrange the necessary drainage schemes. If you attempt to have a financial scheme that is not elastic, you will find local authorities involved in the same difficulties as under the preceding Act of Parliament. They bought land, made roads, made the necessary drainage schemes, laid out the estate, and when everything was ready to build the houses the right hon. Member for West Swansea refused to give the necessary financial assistance from the Treasury. Under this scheme I would suggest to the Committee we have no guarantee that you will not have a recurrence of the same thing, and therefore the provisions made in this Clause that
the grant should be per house and not per the whole of the estate development is unsatisfactory, and I venture to say impracticable and unworkable.
There is another very serious fault, that the grant is only for 20 years. The loan period for house construction is 60 years, for land 80 years. Therefore, at the end of 20 years London, like other authorities, will find itself landed with a deficit. It may be said that the rate of interest will fall, but against that the cost of repairs will rise. [HON. MEMBERS: "The houses will fall."] Anyone who has had practical experience of housing knows that the cost of repairs naturally goes up as the house becomes old. The cost of repairs, in the early days, is comparatively small, but at the end of 20 years it is a very considerable charge on the rent received from the house.
There is another, and more serious aspect. At the present moment rents are high. The rents on the various estates owned by the London County Council are now at a very high rate, and are based on the wages which were fixed just after the War. Unfortunately, during the last 12 months, wages have been steadily falling. In many cases those now being paid make it quite impossible, even with the very low standard of house now being put up, for the ordinary working man to pay the rent—on the estate built by the London County Council, at Becontree, near London, there is a rent strike, because of the very high rents—and there is the possibility that at the end of 20 years, when the Government grant is withdrawn, it will be necessary very considerably to reduce the rents. There is a third aspect. At the present time there are no empties amongst any of the municipal houses throughout the country. So great is the demand that every house is occupied as soon as it is built. In normal times there is always a certain percentage of empties, due to the movement of the population. At the end of 20 years it will be necessary to charge up on to the rent a certain sum to allow for the natural movement of the population, and to make proper provision for empties. Therefore, at the end of 20 years, the various local authorities will find themselves having to carry the burden out of the rates for any loss on these houses, although the charges
will be increased by there being a certain amount of empties and a very large increase in the cost of repairs, while it will be difficult to keep the very high standard of rent now being charged for the municipal house.
For that reason, the only practicable scheme to make this Bill workable from a financial point of view is for the Government to guarantee to the local authorities a loss, whether £6 or more, for the whole of the loan period. Twenty years is an entirely fictitious figure, selected, for some reason we have never been able to fathom, by the Minister of Health. [An HON. MEMBER: "The age of a house!"] My hon. Friend suggests it is the age of a house. I think that is a libel on these houses. I believe in municipal houses. The houses put up by the London authorities—I do not know what happens in Scotland—will, I hope, last for a considerable period longer than 20 years. The practical proposal I suggest to the Minister is to bow to the general feeling of the country, and to become a real partner with the local authorities in any loss that may ensue from the cost of building these houses.
There is one other matter to which I should like to refer from the financial point of view. The Minister of Health, on the ground of economy, in order to make this scheme workable, has limited his grant to a small, non-parlour type of house. The London County Council has the advantage of a very highly trained staff—architect, engineer, and valuer—who have had many years' experience of housing, not only since the War, but before it. They have got out a report, which I have here, in which they point out that if this scheme is to be a financial success, and if the loss is not going to be greater than £6 for a house, there must be diversity of accommodation. The report points out:
That it is essential, in any development on a large scale of an estate, that there shall be a sufficient diversity of accommodation provided for the housing of families of varying sizes, and also to enable tenants to transfer to larger houses as the families increase. Though the erection of larger houses involves larger expenditure, as a rule it is the smaller house which involves the largest loss.
So by increasing the size of the house you would remove part of the larger loss from the local authorities. That is a strong reason, if you are going to work
this financial scheme, for allowing diversity of type which permits the inclusion of parlour houses. We have also support on that point from the Tudor Walters Committee which was appointed to study the housing problem purely from the financial point of view. Their Report points out that it is not a sound economic policy to reduce the cost of building by cutting down unduly the size of the rooms, because the smaller the size of the rooms the higher must be the cost per cubic foot of space provided, because the smaller the rooms the greater must be the proportionate area of containing walls. While the expense of the room, for fireplace, chimney, door, etc., remains the same, the cost in proportion to floor space rises. I would suggest that, if we are going to adhere to this very inadequate grant, we must allow greater variety of type, because the smaller the type of house, especially the non-parlour type, the greater the cost as compared with the larger type in proportion to the floor space provided.
For these reasons, if we cannot have more satisfactory financial provision than this Clause provides, it would be better that the Bill should not become an Act of Parliament, and it would be better to return to the old scheme, which, after all, did produce houses and broke down only because its financial provisions were too generous. But the fact that the financial provisions of the last Act of Parliament were too generous is no justification for making the new financial provisions so unsatisfactory that if they are not increased they will not result in the houses which are so badly wanted, especially in London, being erected. Nor are you trying to deal with slum clearances in London and throughout the country. If you are going to deal with them on a large scale you must have provision for rehousing. You cannot pull down houses and destroy the slums unless you have somewhere to rehouse the people while you are doing so.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: This Amendment has nothing to do with slum clearances.

Mr. HARRIS: This Clause, which provides £6 per tenement, is the Clause to which the local authorities will have to look for fresh houses to take the place of the slums that are cleared away.
Everybody knows, and no one better than the Minister of Health, that it is impossible to take away the people from these congested areas and rehouse them entirely outside the district.

Sir H. CRAIK: Is it in order for the hon. Member to debate the place to which people must be removed on the Amendment to leave out this paragraph?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: As I understand, the hon. Member is seeking to show that the provision made in the paragraph is inadequate.

Mr. HARRIS: If these financial provisions do not hold good, we shall go back to the old Act, and if the Minister could put the provisions of the Act of 1919 into operation, the local authorities would be going full speed ahead and providing the necessary houses. You cannot pull down slums in any of the great cities unless you provide the necessary houses in which to put the people. That has been our experience in the Brady Street area. Anyone who has gone into the question of building block dwellings knows that the loss will be very much more than £12 per tenement.

Mr. HOHLER: On a point of Order. I want to draw attention to the fact that paragraph (b) of the Resolution calls attention to the question of rehousing. Is it in order on an Amendment to strike out paragraph (a) to refer to rehousing, which is dealt wholly in paragraph (b)?

Mr. LANSBURY: May I ask how many Chairmen there are in the Committee?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I find it exceedingly difficult to separate the questions of rehousing and the clearance of slums. I take it that the hon. Member is dealing with the subject of rehousing in order to link it up with slum clearances.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: May I call attention to the fact that in the Resolution the two things are quite separate and are dealt with under a different provision? The provision of new houses is dealt with by means of subsidy in paragraph (a). The clearances of slums and rehousing of the people are dealt with under a different paragraph, which provides
that half the estimated annual loss is borne by the State.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am aware of that fact. It is in order for the hon. Member to refer, in passing, but not in detail, to the question of slum clearances.

Mr. HOHLER: Would it be in order to ask the hon. Member to be reasonably short?

Mr. BECKER: Is there any difference between slums and houses?

Mr. HARRIS: I can answer that question. Most of our houses are slums. The slum question is so large that you cannot deal with it merely by pulling down the slums. You merely drive the people into some other area in the neighbourhood, and create further slums. If you are to cure the slum evil you must build further houses. In the County of London alone, quite apart from Greater London and Richmond, where there are congested areas, there are 1,900 groups of houses which are insanitary or congested, and they contain no fewer than 184,000 people. There are also, apart from that, 365,000 people in the County of London, living in individual houses which are, in the words of a medical officer of health,
of defective construction, in a decayed and dilapidated condition, and should be piffled down.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It would not be in order to go into details on the question of the clearance of the slums. I allowed the hon. Member to refer to the fact that it is necessary to build houses to re-house the people, but he is entering into too much detail.

Mr. HARRIS: I did not intend to quote figures had it not been for the interruption of the hon. Member for Richmond (Mr. Becker) and the suggestion that you can deal with slums merely by pulling down the houses. I think the interruption justified me in quoting the figures.

Mr. BECKER: On a point of Order. I did not interrupt the hon. Member. I rose to a point of Order, as I am entitled to do, and I was trying to assist the hon. Member.

Mr. HARRIS: I will not discuss the point further. I am anxious that this
Bill, if it is to become an Act, should go through as soon as possible. No one knows the question better than the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education, who was an active member of the Housing Committee of the London County Council, and he will support me when I say that the problem in London is so large that it is only by a generous comprehensive scheme you can materially improve the position. A report came before the Housing Committee of which the Noble Lord was vice-chairman, to the following effect:
There seems little doubt that the building carried out since 1919 has not been sufficient to provide anything towards reducing the shortage of houses, and probably has not been sufficient to meet the normal growth in demand during that period.
That was under the previous Act with its generous proposals and with financial provisions which made up all deficiencies over a penny rate. If the last Measure did not enable local authorities to keep pace with the normal growth of the population, how can the Minister expect this scheme, with its inadequate provision over a short period, to make up the deficiency? If this Bill is going to be substituted for the Act of 1919, it must be entirely recast on more generous terms which will enable the local authorities to tackle the problem on large and comprehensive lines so that, during the next few years, we may not merely he able to provide individual houses, but may be able to meet the normal growth of the population and also do something to decrease the terrible overcrowding that exists and to clear the slums.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I confess I listened with some interest and curiosity to see what were the points which could be raised on this particular Amendment. The hon. Member has given three reasons why he thinks this paragraph should be omitted. The first is that London is not satisfied with the flat rate of £6 per house provided in the Bill. That only illustrates the extraordinary difficulty you have the moment you depart from the principle of the flat rate. I must leave it to the hon. Member to explain to his county council how it is he has just voted for an Amendment which, if carried, would have confined London to the £6 subsidy.
The second point which the hon. Gentleman took up was the question of the 20
years. That is a new point, and I propose, therefore, to take this opportunity of saying a word on the general considerations which induced us to confine our subsidy to a period of 20 years, instead of taking it for the whole period of the loan, namely, 60 years. What is the £6 subsidy to represent? The combined subsidy, which is going to be provided partly from the Exchequer and partly from the rates, is to make up the difference between the market value of the house and its actual cost, and, therefore, it is represented by no tangible asset at all, and it is for that reason that it seemed to us advisable that we should endeavour to get rid of this liability at the earliest possible date, because there really is nothing in the house to represent it. I think it would be wise, perhaps, of the local authorities if they were to follow our example in that respect, and although the hon. Member seemed to think that London will find itself, as he expressed it, saddled with these extra charges for 20 years, I am sure he fully appreciates that there is no difficulty at all in so arranging the loan that the whole of the deficiency estimated to arise over the 60 years is, in fact, paid off at the end of the 20 years.

Mr. HARRIS: It would increase the loss for the first 20 years.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: After then it would be a self-supporting scheme. It would increase the loss during that period when you would be getting the subsidy from the Exchequer, and when you ceased to get the subsidy from the Exchequer, then the loss would be so much less. That is what I am suggesting, and that is what I think would be a way of getting over the difficulty.

Mr. NICHOL: What relation would the subsidy have to this increase during the period if this actuarial adjustment were made?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The answer to that is that it depends on what the estimated annual loss is going to be, but if the annual loss were just double the subsidy, that is to say, if the annual loss were £12 instead of £6, for 20 years, the relation would be exactly 50–50.

Mr. NICHOL: Does that include the commutation of the succeeding 40 years? What difference would it make in the loss
over the first 20 years if the whole of the succeeding 40 years were commuted into it?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am sure the hon. Member sees that it really does not very much matter whether you call it £6 for 20 years or £4 for 60 years The actual equivalent in the capital value is the same in both cases, and therefore, if the loss is, in fact, estimated to be the same for the local authorities as it is for the Exchequer, then what they pay off, if they pay off in the first 20 years, will be exactly equal to the amount of subsidy given by the Exchequer. The only other point is the question of the type of houses to be provided. I cannot see why it is necessary to raise that on this Financial Resolution, because there is every possibility, after the Financial Resolution, of raising the question of the type and size of the houses in the Standing Committee upstairs. Amendments can be moved to alter the dimensions which are specified in the Bill, and there is nothing in this Resolution which ties you down to any particular type or size, and nothing, therefore, which makes it necessary for us to decide that question now.

Mr. WHEATLEY: I am rather surprised that on the discussion of this Financial Resolution the right hon. Gentleman has not submitted to the Committee some financial statement on which he bases his £6 subsidy. The whole of the discussion on the various Estimates has centred on the adequacy or inadequacy of the sum mentioned in the. Bill. I can hardly believe that the right hon. Gentleman and his permanent officials have left him in the state in which he has left the Committee which he has addressed. I should have thought that it was comparatively easy to prepare an estimate of the revenue and expenditure of the housing proposals in the Bill, and to have shown from that statement of revenue and expenditure almost accurately what the loss will be, and in that way justify—if it can be justified—the limitation of the subsidy to £6 and its duration to 20 years. May I try to present to the right hon. Gentleman something roughly prepared in the nature of a statement, which I think he ought to have submitted to the Committee? The first thing he Should have told us was what was the estimated cost of the house. I mentioned in the
discussion on the Second Reading of this Bill that the houses proposed here would probably cost on an average not less than £500 each, and I have heard Members since, in the course of discussion, put it as high as £520. I think I would be safe in assuming that tha right hon. Gentleman himself intends, or, at any rate, the Committee has been led to believe he intends, when the Measure goes into Committee upstairs, to raise the minimum standard of the house, and, consequently, the cost of its construction. So that when I put the price at £500, I am making little allowance for the increase in size promised by the right hon. Gentleman, and making no allowance at all for the operations of the trusts which control the prices of building material.
I would like the right hon. Gentleman, apart from this discussion, to tell us whether, when his Bill gets into operation, if the trusts send up the cost of construction beyond £500, it is his intention to tackle the trusts, or will he follow the policy adopted by the late Government, and stop the construction of houses? Taking the price at £500, we have a basis on which we can make a calculation. I suppose the Committee is familiar with the fact that in housing schemes you have two systems, either of which you may adopt in paying off the loan. The one usually adopted in England was the annuity system, and it was adopted under the Dr. Addison scheme. In the annuity system, you calculate the total sum to be repaid on interest and principal, divided by 60, and make a 60th part the annual burden on the house. Taking that system, I find that the annual burden on the house for sinking fund and interest will be £26 8s. 4d. In allowing £5 for repairs spread over each of the 20 years, I do not think I am exceeding the amount that will be required, and in leaving for management, insurance, site, etc., a sum of £2 10s., I think I am also taking a very moderate figure. If I add to that the total rates on the house, and put those at the very modest estimate of £15, I get a total of £48 18s. 4d. If I deduct the subsidy of £6, there remains £42 18s. 4d. to be raised.
Then we get to the question of what the rent of such a house should be. The right hon. Gentleman tried to justify the very small size of the houses on the plea that the class of people for whom they
were intended were the very poorest of the poor, who deserved our earliest attention. If the contention of the Attorney-General was well founded, then here is a class of people who cannot afford to pay a very high rent. I have drawn a line at 10s. per week rent, and I have heard 5s. and 4s. mentioned on the opposite side of the House. If I take £26 for rent and rates from such people it will be at least 25 per cent. of their total income, a percentage which I make bold to say not a single Member on the other side of the House pays out of his income for housing accommodation. If I take £26, there is a loss to be made good by the local authority of £16 18s. 4d. I would like the right hon. Gentleman to submit a financial statement showing the loss to be left to the local authority, and, consequently, more in accordance with his case. If I take practically £17 as the loss on each house, a figure, by the way, which was estimated by one of the hon. Members sitting behind the right hon. Gentleman in the course of the discussion to-night, and I apply it to the requirements of the city of which I am one of the representatives, Glasgow, which requires 70,000 houses, I find that on those 70,000 houses for Glasgow—and the claim of the Government is that this Bill will "deliver the goods"—there will be an annual loss of £1,190,000 to be made up by the ratepayers. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not?"] That is the annual loss for the first 20 years. At the end of the 20 years I would remind hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side of the House the houses will require more subsidising than in the first 20 years. The sum of £5 will not look at the repairs of a house that has been 20 years in existence; just at the time, too, when the subsidy is most needed the right hon. Gentleman is recommending that it be withdrawn.
Let me draw the attention of the Committee to what I said on the subject of finance on the Second Reading. That is the enormous part that interest on capital plays in this housing problem. Would it surprise hon. Members to learn that every house that costs £500 costs us £1,085, or the price of two more houses, in interest alone? They pay this to the people on whom they are dependent for the capital—

Mr. CHARLES CROOK: Or anybody else!

Mr. WHEATLEY: Pursuing this line we get some amazing figures. Before the monied classes will allow the working classes to have a million houses, the working classes must guarantee in interest alone on such houses one thousand millions, and if we are to raise the whole standard of working house accommodation to the very low standard provided by this Bill we would require no less than four million houses. Before we could get these we should require to guarantee in interest on the capital £4,000,000,000. Consequently it is practically impossible to get these houses. I submit, to the right hon. Gentleman that, just as he found it necessary to appoint a Committee to investigate the control of prices of building materials by trusts, he might go further and appoint another Committee which would consider the effect which interest on finance has on the housing accommodation of the country.

Mr. JOWETT: It was observed by my hon. Friend the Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley) in his speech last week on the Second Reading of this Bill, that the crux of this housing question was finance. The Attorney-General in his reply on that occasion disputed that assertion, but the finance that has been provided in this Resolution is so meagre that on the right hon. Gentleman's own figures the housing question, so far from being settled by these proposals, will hardly be disturbed in any sense whatever. The right hon. Gentleman himself said there had been 215,000 houses built within the last four years, but he acknowledged that 161,000 of those houses were actually due and required to provide for the increase of population, leaving only 54,000 houses as a real net increase to meet the enormous deficiency of 800,000 houses that was shown to be required in 1919 by the local authorities who made special inquiries and reported to that effect. Fifty-four thousand houses towards 800,000, leaving 746,000! The right hon. Gentleman's proposal under the finance of this Bill is to provide 120,000 more houses in the next two years. On his own showing, it requires 85,000 houses for two years to meet the requirements of the increase of population, so that he is only providing the difference between 85,000 and 120,000 towards increasing the
supply of houses in this country. Treating the figures in that way, which I contend is the only reasonable way in which to treat them, his net balance of 35,000 houses, being the difference between 85,900 which are needed in order to provide for increased population and 120,000 provided in the Bill—that 35,000 taken from the 746,000 deficiency leaves 711,000 still to be provided.
This £6 per house will never provide anything more than the right hon. Gentleman himself has estimated, and my contention is that it will provide much less. On what principle is this £6 per house to be given? First, to private builders; secondly, to local authorities, providing they satisfy the right hon. Gentleman that private building speculators have not been interfered with, which is a most derogatory position in which to put municipalities, and one which will not encourage the building of good houses in this country. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) applied two tests to this Bill, which, in my opinion, were very good tests indeed. The first was: Will the Bill help to get the houses? That depends upon what you call help. It is a very modest kind of assistance that this Bill will provide on the right hon. Gentleman's own showing, because it is only 120,000 in two years, and of that total 85,000 will be required to meet the ordinary increase of population. The second test applied by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley: Will the Bill provide house at rents which the class of people they are intended for can pay?
What kind of people are to be provided for? On this point one cannot do better than draw from one's own experience. In the town which I represent, the medical officer has stated that 20 per cent. of the better class of workers' houses are occupied by two or more families each. That is the first problem. If these houses are to be of any service at all, they should be of a kind to meet the requirements of the people, who are now, for the first time in their experience, living with two or three families in one house. You should erect the kind of house which these people have been accustomed to, and which they require. What is the kind of house which the Minister of Health proposes under this scheme? It is one with 850 superficial feet, and he actually suggests that
a meagre superficial area like that is sufficient to provide a parlour as well. I am quite prepared to admit that there is a good deal of nonsense talked about parlours. If there is not ground space enough for a house with a parlour, and if the floor space is not sufficient to provide a good parlour, it is far better that the house should have a good big living room and a good working scullery, even if you have to dispense with the parlour altogether. I submit that a house with three bedrooms on one floor, as is contemplated, cannot possibly have rooms sufficiently large on such a superficial minimum area as 850 feet.
11.0. P.M.
I submit that the minimum for a non-parlour house is 950 superficial feet, and, where a parlour is required, at least 150 superficial feet should be added. What about the rents? I have tried to describe the kind of people that are being herded together, more than one family in a house, people who never before have been subjected to such experience. What rents can they pay? Can they pay the rents of these houses? My hon. Friend the Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley) gave some figures with regard to the cost. Taking into account the land, street works, and drainage, houses even of 850 superficial feet could not, in my judgment, be built in a town similar to my own, which has some 300,000 inhabitatnts, for less than £500. That, at 5 per cent., is £25 for a start. Then there are the rates at 16s. in the £, amounting to £17, and, if you reckon the small sum of £5 for repairs, that makes £47 altogether. Deducting the Government subsidy of £6 and the local subsidy of another £6, you have left £35 per year, or 13s. 6d. per week. That scheme will not work. The houses will not be built in many instances, because many municipal and local authorities will refuse to build them under the conditions, and others will realise that those for whom the houses are intended cannot pay these rents we have not finished with this matter. The crux of the question is finance, and the right hon. Gentleman has never faced that question. There is also the question of materials. A Committee is to be appointed. If similar action were taken with respect to the control of building materials as was
taken during the War, the matter could be put on a fair and square basis. I know it has been said that we cannot go back to the old system of control. The great mistake that was made before was that prices of building materials were fixed for the municipalities and not for private enterprise, with the result that building materials were supplied for picture palaces, garages, big warehouses, or for whatever they could get the best prices, leaving it impossible for the municipalities to work. If action were taken with regard to building materials similar to that which was taken with regard to munitions of war, then the thing could be easily done. In my own town in the West Riding of Yorkshire, 80 per cent. of the textiles were turned out under the costing system, which left no chance whatever of plunder.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I would remind the hon. Member that he is making a Second Reading speech.

Mr. JOWETT: I am just finishing now. I want to appeal to the right hon. Gentleman, who has had a very elaborate testimonial from the Attorney-General for his municipal experience. I do not know the right hon. Gentleman's work sufficiently intimately to endorse that testimony. I do know that Birmingham, from 1880 and for the following 25 years, lived on its reputation as a municipality. I know that the right hon. Gentleman entered upon his municipal experience with a great name; and he also had the advantage of the magnificent example of the Bourneville colony very near. But the present scheme will not solve the housing problem. It will not touch the fringe of the housing problem. If the right hon. Gentleman does not want to go down as another failure among those who have preceded him in dealing with this housing problem, then he must scrap this Bill entirely and bring in a better one.

Mr. PRINGLE: It is not my intention, unless undue provocation is offered to me, to take up the attention or time of the Committee. I think it important, before we part with the consideration of the paragraph now under discussion, that the Committee should have something more definite in the form of an estimate of the cost of this part of the scheme. It has been the custom of the Committee of this House to demand from Ministers, when
Financial Resolutions were under discussion, some approximate cost of the scheme for which the Minister is responsible. I recollect that when the Addison scheme was before the last Parliament, an estimate was then given of the full cost. We were told then particulars of the houses that were to be provided, and an estimate was given of the liability of the State. At the present time, neither one nor the other is given. Under the Addison scheme it was understood that 500,000 houses were to be built and the estimate then given of the capital liability of the State was £10,000,000. It is interesting, therefore, to recollect, in relation to that estimate, what has exactly happened in respect to the building of houses and the liability of the State. Something like 200,000 houses have been provided—less than half the number anticipated—and the liability of the State—[Interruption.] I can quite understand why the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colchester (Sir L. Worthington-Evans) should not be anxious to hear these views. He was one of the gentlemen responsible for the estimate.

Sir LAMING WORTHINGTON-EVANS: He prefers accuracy.

Mr. PRINGLE: If there be any inaccuracy, I will be glad to be corrected. I remember the sum put forward as the sum of the State's liability—

Sir L. WORTHINGTON - EVANS: Annual liability.

Mr. PRINGLE: The annual liability. I was assuming the Committee were familiar with the point. It shows I was not desiring to mislead the Committee in any way. If I had suggested that that was the capital liability, it would be minimising it to an extraordinary extent. That is a practice which is not common on the part of the Opposition. But the fact is that we had 200,000 houses costing £10,000,000 a year. If we turn to the financial statement of the Minister of Health now placed before us, we have simply a series of hypotheses, not a single definite statement of what can be done. He says 200,000 working-class houses have been built during the last four years, and that if this average were maintained during the period provided by the Bill, something like 120,000 houses would be
eligible for the grant, and that the charge to the Exchequer would be £720,000 per annum for 20 years.

Mr. C. CROOK: How would you put it?

Mr. PRINGLE: I am not proposing the Bill, nor am I in a position to make an official estimate. I am asking the Minister to give us a correct estimate first, of the number of houses he expects to be built, and second, what will be the cost to the Exchequer. We find, again, it goes on to say, that if 120,000 houses were built and the rate amounted to £5 per house, the charge falling on the rates would be £600,000 per annum for 20 years. To put that forward as an estimate in regard to this Bill is totally inadequate, and this is an estimate the House should not accept. Further details should be demanded from the Government, and apart from these details we should decline to vote this Resolution. Even if you had 120,000 houses under this Bill, it would be no solution of the problem at all. A hundred and twenty thousand houses during the period contemplated under the Bill does not make good what may be described as the annual shortage. In these circumstances this is simply a mockery and a sham. My hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris) spoke in admiration of the Addison scheme because it had provided the houses, but he went on to say it did not make up the annual shortage. I do not think that is an eulogy of that particular scheme; but we are to be in exactly the same position under this scheme, probably worse. It proves clearly that the whole subsidy system is a fraud and a sham. Under the Addison scheme you had an enormous inflation of all prices. Everything connected with building went up. Everybody, in other words, started to plunder the Exchequer. When you announce these subsidies, you are offering an invitation to everybody to have a little bit. That is what is going to happen now. You will have prices going up in the same way, and instead of getting the houses you will have an embargo upon houses in the shape of increased prices. We had a Committee to watch prices; have they ever been any good? They simply fold their hands
and watch the operation going on. Even although you took statutory powers, it would not do any good. These people would do it.
I have a clear remedy in my own mind, but I should be out of order at the present time if I ventured to put it forward. We are not considering an alternative scheme, but the scheme which the Government have put before the Committee, and only upon that scheme are the Committee entitled to pronounce an opinion. With the experience of the Addison scheme, we have it clearly before us that subsidies are not going to solve this problem, but are only going to be a means of enabling the profiteers of all classes to plunder the public. This is a new substitute for the doctrine of tranquillity. We read of
A little more sleep, a little more slumber.
The Government's policy on housing is:
A little more loot, and a little more plunder.
[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] It is perfectly true, and hon. Members opposite who are jeering at that will find it is true before they are very much older. This is purely a shop-window proposal. It does for the window for a moment, but it is a dummy, like so many other articles that are put in shop windows. It is not the goods. It is put up to tide over the present difficulties of the Government, and to enable them, possibly, to survive the present Session, and to get over the rent restriction proposals, when, indeed, they see the light. As regards providing the houses, however, or solving the housing problem, there is not a single step forward in these proposals. If the Minister of Health really intended them to be bonâ fide substantial proposals, he would have put a clear estimate before the Committee. It is because there are no figures before the Committee upon which they can pronounce, that I hold this to be a sham, a fraud, and a delusion.

Sir LAMING WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I am not going to follow the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down in his speech, and I say, at once, that I am going to support the Government. I say that at once, in case there should be any misunderstanding, because I propose to criticise this Financial Resolution, but I am going to support the Government because I think it is better
than nothing. The hon. Gentleman who has just spoken said that I should fear the publication of the statistics of the last housing scheme. Quite the contrary. If the hon. Gentleman had quoted them correctly I should have been very delighted that the Committee should have had them in their memory while considering the proposals now before them. He suggested that the estimate was that there should be an expenditure of £10,000,000, but he forgot to remind the Committee that that was £10,000,000 a year.

Mr. PRINGLE: No, I had that clearly in my mind.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Of course, I accept the statement of the hon. Gentleman that he had that clearly in his mind. The difficulty was that he did not state it clearly to the Committee, because he said it was a capital liability and not an annual liability. It is a very hugh liability. I deplore the extent of it, but at least, it did produce 228,000 houses, which is some achievement, if you consider the time at which it was produced.

Captain W. BENN: The estimate was for double that number of houses—500,000.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The hon. and gallant Member says that, and I dare say he is right, but that was not the point that was being made. I want to deal with this Resolution so far as it relates to rural housing. Unfortunately I was unable to be present during the whole of the Debate, but I understand that there has been some discussion on the subject and that the Minister has not been able to give a definite undertaking on the subject. I hope that the Government may reconsider their position with regard to rural housing. If hon. Members will look at the financial paper which has been issued they will see in paragraph 6 a statement with regard to rural housing, which seems to be entirely disingenuous. I am sure that that is not my right hon. Friend's intention. It is suggested there that if 120,000 houses were built and the rate of contribution amounted on the average to as much as £5 per year then the total charge would be £600,000 a year. As a matter of arithmetic that is correct, but it was not put in there in order to teach members of this Committee a
simple sum in arithmetic. It was intended, I suppose, to suggest that the local authorities were not likely to have to increase the Government subsidy of £6 per house by more than £5 per house. I would ask my right hon. Friend whether he thinks that a single house can be built under this Bill in a rural area on a subsidy from the State of £6 for 20 years which, we ought to remember, is only equivalent to £4 for the 60 years for which the loan would run, plus a subsidy not exceeding £5 from the local authority. It is purely illusory to think that houses will be built in rural areas upon those conditions.
What can a labourer, with 26s. or 28s. a week, pay by way of rent and rates? [HON. MEMBERS: "25s.!"] I am thankful to say that that is not general. It is exceptional, and I hope always will be, but take it if you like at from 25s. to 30s. a week, what rent and rates can such a labourer really pay? Can he pay more than 3s. a week? I do not think he can. If he cannot, then there is going to be a loss on every house built for a labourer of £21 a year. That is on the assumption that you can borrow at 5 per cent.—and remember that the Local Loans Commissioners were charging 6½ per cent. only a year ago—that the rates only amount to 1s. per week per house, that you can build a house, buy the land, make the road if a road is needed—sometimes there are no road charges—and pay drainage charges and water charges, all at a cost of from £425 to £450 for a non-parlour house. Then there is going to be a loss per annum of £21 per house after charging the occupant 3s. a week for rent and rates. Where is that £21 to come from? The £21 under this Resolution is to be contributed to the extent of £6 a year for 20 years by the State. That is equivalent only to £4 per year for the period of the loan, 60 years, so that it means that the local authority has got to make up the difference of £17 per year per house. How many houses are to be built by the small local rural authorities for the workmen upon those conditions? I ask the Government, as I believe that they are sincere in desiring to deal, not merely with urban, but with rural difficulties. I ask the Government to reconsider this Financial Resolution before the Report stage. I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health has immense experience in
urban districts. I am sure that he has negotiated with the larger local authorities, the big cities which can borrow cheaply and even build more cheaply than the rural districts. Has he considered sufficiently the demand in the rural districts? Has he considered sufficiently the financial position of the rural districts with from 5,000 inhabitants to 10,000 inhabitants, in which houses are rotting and falling to pieces because new houses cannot be built economically? In the old times the landowner built houses for his workmen, not economically, not expecting to get a rent, but because he thought it was his duty.

Mr. WRIGHT: Is it not the nation's duty to do so, then?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I think so. The landowner can no longer do it. Taxes, the War, and other things have reduced, not his willingness, but his means, and the duty hitherto fulfilled by the landowner must fall upon someone else. Houses built in the past are not sufficient to-day for the country side, and frequently they are not up to the standard of comfort that, a man has the right to expect. They must be replaced by some one. By whom? You cannot ask the farmer to do it; he has no means to do it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Question!"] Does anyone who knows anything about the matter say "question." The farmer cannot do it, much as he would like to. Who else is to do it? I say that this Bill ought to have sufficiently wide scope to enable those houses to be built partly by the State and partly by the local authority. The sole question is, therefore, is the State taking upon itself a sufficient share of the burden? I think it is not, and that is why I am speaking. What is the share? Of the £21 economic loss per annum, which is to result upon the conditions I have just stated, the State is to bear £4 and the local authority £17. What is the local authority? It represents the landowner, the farmer, the workman, the small village shopkeeper, and the small village industrialist. Can they spend the £17 that is necessary if these houses are to be built? I do not believe that they can. I believe you are over-burdening a class which cannot stand more liabilities, whether in rates or taxation. I ask the Minister to consider carefully, between now and Wednesday next, whether he cannot do
something more for rural housing. I do not say this scheme cannot work for urban housing. I think it can. You have got there people from whom you can raise the money which is necessary, either by rates or taxes, but in the smaller country districts you have not got those people, and you are either going to have, the Bill fail entirely in its object of providing houses in the rural districts, or you will have to make a greater contribution from the State to those in the rural localities who will otherwise have to bear the cost of the houses. I understand my right hon. Friend has said to-night that this Bill is a beginning. If he were to say that this Bill is only a beginning and that within a year he will bring forward a further Measure to deal with rural housing as a separate problem, I should, myself, be content, but if there is a complete non possumus on behalf of the Government then, although I regard this Bill as an instalment and as better than nothing, yet I cannot say that anyone interested in the rural districts can possibly be satisfied.

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: If any justification were required for pressing this Amendment to a Division, that justification is contained in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. As the right hon. Gentleman was a Member of the Government responsible for a great deal of the housing muddle since 1918, it is like Satan reproving sin to hear the admonitions he has addressed to the present Minister of Health. He has, however, intimated that, in spite of his objections to the Bill, he intends to vote with the Government. Is that an indication that he desires to play the part of the prodigal son? I do not know whether he expects the fatted calf to be slain, and whether he expects to get a slice of it. In any case, the whole position as he has presented it has already been discussed on previous Amendments. So far as we are concerned, we object to the Bill, as we object to the financial proposals it contains. As has been pointed out by speaker after speaker, this Bill will not solve the housing problem, and the houses it is supposed to provide will scarcely suffice to keep pace with the increase in population. Any attempt by the Minister to justify the Bill or its totally inadequate financial provisions, must fail. It is not only as regards the
rural areas that the Bill will require to provide a larger subsidy. In its present form, it places a heavy burden on the whole community, and it fails to deal with the whole housing problem throughout the country, with the clearance of slum areas, with the erection of new houses to meet the increase of population, or with the provision of houses to make up for the shortage during and since the War. The Minister and the Government seem to imagine that the Bill is something for which the people of the country must give them all credit. If hon. Members opposite give him credit. I am convinced that the people in the country for whom these houses are supposed to be built will not give him credit. We are determined to oppose the proposals of the Government. The Minister of Health nods his head. He understands why we consider those proposals are totally inadequate. We have had Commission after Commission sitting on housing questions, studying the condition of people in the towns and the rural districts, in the highlands and islands of Scotland, and, in spite of all the Committees and the promises that have been made prior to two General Elections, this is all that can be brought forward in five years of Coalition and Conservative Governments.

Mr. BECKER: You cannot mix them up.

Mr. MACLEAN: I consider that this particular question is something that comes from the previous Government. It is the ideas that come from the Coalition Government that are now being presented to us. It is the mixing up of a section of one party with a section of another party, but the two ideas have not mixed at all, and this is the result. The poor people in the country have got to suffer for the total inadequacy of the Government's proposition. If you desire to have tranquillity, you must have a contented people, and you are not going to have contentment in the country with the houses that this money is proposing to erect—120,000 houses in two years' time, yet we were told in 1918 that the erection of houses was the first plank in the reconstruction programme of the Government which was then seeking the suffrages of the electors. It has taken five years to build 200,000 of the 800,000 houses they proposed at that time, and now we are expected to believe that we shall have an additional 120,000. I am convinced, in
my own mind, that you will not have anything near that total in the two years covered by these proposals.

Captain TERRELL: I will bet you half-a-crown.

Mr. MACLEAN: I hope the hon. and gallant Member is not going to the extent of his wealth. If the Government really intended to grapple with this housing question, instead of coming forward at this moment with talk of subsidies, the heaviest part of which will really have to be borne by the localities themselves, they would take their courage in their hands, and take control of all the building material in the country, and the sources of all the building material. [An HON. MEMBER: "And labour."] Labour as well, I quite agree, if the Government will also, in taking control of labour, see to it that many of those in the West End of London who are not doing useful work are put to do it. [An HON. MEMBER: "You will not let ex-service men work."] After the Debate on ex-service men which took place recently, I think hon. Members opposite should be the last to mention that subject.

The CHAIRMAN: I would remind the hon. Member who is speaking that he is getting rather far from the Question before the Committee.

Mr. MACLEAN: Hon. Members opposite drew me away from the point. I hope they will have patience, because I have only one or two more pearls to cast before them. [Interruption.] Not only could the Government take control of the building materials, but of the land as well. This Government, however, has not the courage, and the last Government had not the courage, to take the building material and the land upon which the houses are to be erected. If the Government would do something in that regard, there would be no occasion for a subsidy from the Government or from the local authorities. The material would be there, costing could be done along proper lines, as was done during the War in the prduction of munitions. The houses could be erected at economic rents. That—and that only—is the way in which we believe the housing shortage can be met, and the people housed, not in the shoddy manner in which this Government Bill desires us to house the people, but housed in dwellings which would give decency and comfort, and enable them to bring up children in a healthy manner, such as is quite impossible under this Bill.

Question put, "That paragraph (a) stand part of the Question."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 208; Noes, 97.

Division No. 119.]
AYES.
[11.44 p.m.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Camplon, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Fraser, Major Sir Keith


Apsley, Lord
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W.
Churchman, Sir Arthur
Furness, G. J.


Astor, J. J. (Kent, Dover)
Clayton, G. C.
Ganzoni, Sir John


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Garland, C. S.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Gates, Percy


Banks, Mitchell
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Gaunt, Bear-Admiral Sir Guy R.


Barlow, Rt. Hon. Sir Montague
Cope, Major William
Goff, Sir R. Park


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.
Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)


Barnston, Major Harry
Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)
Guest, Hon. C. H. (Bristol, N.)


Becker, Harry
Croft, Lieut.-Colonel Henry Page
Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Crook, C. W. (East Ham, North)
Gwynne, Rupert S.


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Crooke, J. S. (Deritend)
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.


Bennett, Sir T. J. (Sevenoaks)
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)


Berry, Sir George
Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)
Halstead, Major D.


Betterton, Henry B.
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Hamilton, Sir George C. (Altrincham)


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Harrison, F. C.


Blundell, F. N.
Dawson, Sir Philip
Harvey, Major S. E.


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Dixon, C. H. (Rutland)
Hawke, John Anthony


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Du Pre, Colonel William Baring
Hay, Major T. W. (Norfolk, South)


Brass, Captain W.
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Henn, Sir Sydney H.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)
Ellis, R. G.
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)


Brown, Major D. C. (Hexham)
Erskine, James Malcolm Montelth
Herbert, S. (Scarborough)


Brown, J. W. (Middlesbrough, E.)
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank


Buckingham, Sir H.
Erskine-Bolst, Captain C.
Hiley, Sir Ernest


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.


Burn, Colonel Sir Charles Rosdew
Falcon, Captain Michael
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)


Butcher, Sir John George
Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy


Butler, H. M. (Leeds, North)
Fermor-Hesketh, Major T.
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard


Button, H. S.
Ford, Patrick Johnston
Hopkins, John W. W.


Cadogan, Major Edward
Forestier-Walker, L.
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)


Houfton, John Plowright
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.)
Newson, Sir Percy Wilson
Sparkes, H. W.


Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K.
Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)
Spender-Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H.


Hume, G. H.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Stanley, Lord


Hutchison, W. (Kelvingrove)
Paget, T. G.
Stewart, Gershom (Wirral)


Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Parker, Owen (Kettering)
Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H.


Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Pennefather, De Fonblanque
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Jenkins, W. A. (Brecon and Radnor)
Penny, Frederick George
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Jephcott, A. R.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid H.


Jodrell, Sir Neville Paul
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Joynson-Hicks, Sir William
Peto, Basil E.
Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)


Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham)
Pielou, D. P.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Kennedy, Captain M. S. Nigel
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Thorpe, Captain John Henry


King, Captain Henry Douglas
Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.
Titchfield, Marquess of


Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Lamb, J. Q.
Remer, J. R.
Tubbs, S. W.


Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Colonel G. R.
Rentoul, G. S.
Turton, Edmund Russborough


Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Reynolds, W. G. W.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Rhodes, Lieut.-Col. J. P.
Wallace, Captain E.


Lorden, John William
Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Lorimer, H. D.
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)
Watts, Dr. T. (Man., Withington)


Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)
Robertson- Despencer, Major (Isl'gt'n W)
Wells, S. R.


Lumley, L. R.
Rogerson, Capt. J. E.
Weston, Colonel John Wakefield


Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Rounded, Colonel R. F.
White, Lt.-Col. G. D. (Southport)


McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)
Ruggles-Brise, Major E.
Whitla, Sir William


Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Manville, Edward
Russell-Wells, Sir Sydney
Wise, Frederick


Mason, Lieut.-Col. C. K.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Wolmer, Viscount


Mercer, Colonel H.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden)
Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A.
Wood, Major Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Sanderson, Sir Frank B.
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Molloy, Major L. G. S.
Sandon, Lord
Yerburgh, R. D. T.


Morrison, Hugh (Wilts, Salisbury)
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.



Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)
Shepperson, E. W.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Murchison, C. K.
Skelton, A. N.
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Colonel


Nall, Major Joseph
Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)
Gibbs.


Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)
Smith, Sir Harold (Wavertree)



NOES.


Adams, D.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Rose, Frank H.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Royce, William Stapleton


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Harbord, Arthur
Saklatvala, S.


Barnes, A.
Harris, Percy A.
Salter, Dr. A.


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar (Banff)
Hastings, Patrick
Scrymgeour, E.


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (N'castle, E.)
Sexton, James


Bonwick, A.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Shaw, Thomas (Preston)


Bowdler, W. A.
Hinds, John
Shinwell, Emanuel


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hutchison, Sir R. (Kirkcaldy)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Briant, Frank
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Simpson, J. Hope


Broad, F. A.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Lees-Smith, H. B. (Keighley)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)
Snell, Harry


Buchanan, G.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Snowden, Philip


Burgess, S.
Jones, R. T. (Carnarvon)
Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)


Buxton, Charles (Accrington)
Jowett, F. W. (Bradford, East)
Stephen, Campbell


Cairns, John
Jowitt, W. A. (The Hartlepools)
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Cape, Thomas
Lansbury, George
Strauss, Edward Anthony


Chapple, W. A.
Leach, W.
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Charleton, H. C.
Linfield, F. C.
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Clarke, Sir E. C.
Lyle-Samuel, Alexander
Thornton, M.


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
MacDonald, J. R. (Aberavon)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
M'Entee, V. L.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Darbishire, C. W.
McLaren, Andrew
Weir, L. M.


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
March, S.
Wheatley, J.


Duncan, C.
Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, E.)
White, H. G. (Birkenhead, E.)


Ede, James Chuter
Millar, J. D.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Entwistle, Major C. F.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Wintringham, Margaret


Falconer, J.
Newbold, J. T. W.
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Foot, Isaac
Nichol, Robert
Wright, W.


Gosling, Harry
O'Grady, Captain James



Gray, Frank (Oxford)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Greenall, T.
Phillipps, Vivian
Sir Arthur Marshall and Mr. Neil


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Pringle, W. M. R.
Maclean.


Groves, T.
Richards, R.



Main Question put, and agreed to.

Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — NATIONALITY OF MARRIED WOMEN.

Ordered, "That the Lords Message [15th March] relating to the appointment
of a Joint Committee on Nationality of Married Women be now considered."—[Colonel Gibbs.]

Lords Message considered accordingly.

Ordered, "That a Select Committee of Five Members be appointed to joint with a Committee of the Lords to examine the
British Law as to the nationality of married women; to consider in their legal and practical aspects the questions involved in the possession by husband and wife of the same or of different nationalities; and with due regard thereto, and to the operation of the laws of foreign countries, to report what, if any, alteration of the British Law is desirable.—[Colonel Gibbs.]

Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

Committee nominated of, Mr. William Adamson, Sir John Butcher, Mr. Hughes, Sir Henry Norman, and Mrs. Wintringham.

Ordered, "That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records."

Ordered, "That Three be the quorum."—[Colonel Gibbs.]

Orders of the Day — INDIAN AFFAIRS.

Ordered, "That so much of the Lords Message [24th April] as communicates the Resolution, That it is desirable that a Standing Joint Committee on Indian Affairs of both Houses of Parliament be appointed to examine and report on any Bill or matter referred to them specifically by either House of Parliament, and
to consider with a view to reporting, if necessary, thereon any matter relating to Indian Affairs brought to the notice of the Committee by the Secretary of State for India be now considered."—[Colonel Gibbs.]

So much of the Lords Message considered accordingly.

Resolved, "That this House doth concur with the Lords in the said Resolution."—[Colonel Gibbs.]

Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

Orders of the Day — PROTECTION OF ANIMALS (AMENDMENT) BILL.

Read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at One Minute before Twelve o'Clock.